A place to discuss, disagree, and vent your opinions on issues related to government, terrorism, and homeland security. This is the home of the "Stupid Awards" program.

We see more incidents of ‘terrorism’ daily. Just today (October 2, 2017) as I write this short piece, the news is reporting a horrific mass-murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, with over 50 killed and hundreds wounded from automatic weapon fire into a country music festival attended by over 20,000 people. Here, the head of the Sheriff’s Department calls the crime one of mass-murder rather than terrorism, saying that labeling the crime terrorism requires him to apply a set of criteria, including determining the purpose for committing the atrocity before he would call it terrorism. With the killer dead, that change many never come.

That horrific act drove other incidents to the inner pages, and further down in the radio and television news, which only a day earlier was full of yet another bombing, a knifing and other mayhem in France; in Edmonton, Ontario, Canada, a policewoman was shot, and others are injured in walkways by the same killer. In those cases, the authorities called it terrorism. Each week we need other incidents involving knifings, bombing, attacks by automobile, truck, knives and guns, and, in most cases the label is also quickly applied.

But are these cases terrorism? If they are, do we have an evolving definition and purpose for the crime, and its peculiar circumstances? If it is not, then what is actually happening, in increasing numbers of localities throughout the world? What do we call it, and how do we react?

First, let’s look at what terrorism is supposed to be.

The trouble is that terrorism has too many definitions, not all of them in agreement with the others. Part of the problem of defining terrorism lies in what Cronin (2002) has called ‘an unassailable definition’, one which can stand scrutiny in a wide range of situations and occurrences. The problem with his suggestion is that people guard their definitions tightly, even though they may be in violent agreement with others. Thus, there has not emerged to date any single definition to which all can agree.

We can start simply, perhaps with the Merriam-Webster definition of the term. In their view, Terrorism is the“systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”.That gets a bit along the path, but what are many of these ‘terrorists’ trying to coerce?

Going a bit further, Dumas (2012) approaches a definition from a political perspective, indicating that “the word ‘terrorist’ often refers to someone who uses violence to further a cause with which the speaker disagrees,” He goes further, and indicates that, to him, terrorism is a tactic, and not an end to itself. Laqueur (2000) goes even further in saying that the greatest difficulty in arriving at a consensus definition, beyond it simply being a tactic, is that there are multiple forms of terrorism, each with its own peculiar characteristics, and even these are constantly changing.

So, where does that leave us? We have our Merriam-Webster definition that terrorism involves coercion, and others who tell us that coercion is often a tactic designed to force change. But on whom? So far, we are creating as many questions as we are trying to answer.

There is a common thread here, though. Terrorists of whatever persuasion have a purpose for their actions. Al-Qaeda started as a support movement for expelling the Russians from Afghanistan, quickly included hatred for the United States as well because, in their religious view, the presence of infidel troops on the Holy Ground of Saudi Arabia was sinful, and its king should be deposed for his actions.

ISIS, now calling itself simply the Islamic State or Daesh, has a stated purpose of re-establishing Islam as the primary force in all those lands where Islam once ruled. Their leader, al-Baghdadi, styles himself the ‘Khaliffa’, a reference to leaders of Islam descended from Muhammed. Other terrorist groups, both religious and political also state some purpose for their actions, and utilize terror to bring forward their aims and purpose.

The Global Terrorist Database (GTD), maintained by the University of Maryland, and one of the few authoritative sets of data on terrorism, lists over 42,000 incidents which meet its definition of a terrorist act. GTD emerged from work originally done by the Pinkerton Global Intelligence Service (PGIS), a private security organization. Data collected by Pinkerton from 1970 through 1997 became the basis for the first GTD effort. Since that time, GTD has evolved and became a full-time project of the Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and the Responses to Terrorism (START Center) now at U. Md. In 2011. GTD (2016) is the latest complete year of data added to the Database.

In addition to PGIS, other data sources were also included in the consolidated database, and coded according to the definition initially applied by PGIS:

"the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

As it assumed responsibility for the database starting in 1998, START revised its definition, breaking it into components, which could then be coded for analysis as events occurred. While doing so, the Center also expressed its concerns.

“It is well-recognized that divergent definitions of terrorism abound and that the nature and causes of terrorism are hotly contested by both governments and scholars. While certain broad elements of terrorism are generally agreed upon (such as the intentional use of violence), many other factors (such as whether the victims of terrorism must be non-combatants or whether terrorism requires a political motive) continue to be debated. Indeed, even where there is some consensus at the broadest level, there is often disagreement on the details.” Source: START GTD Methodology. Found at: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/using-gtd/

One critical change occurred as the definition evolved. In the latest versions of the GTD, to qualify for inclusion in the database, the act or acts had to be an’ intentional act of violence or threat of violence by a non-state actor.’ That was in addition to three other carefully selected criteria, including (1) The act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal, (2) An intent to coerce, intimidate or convey a message to an audience other than the immediate victims, and (3) The action was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law. These criteria enabled the documentation of numbers of criminal acts which, to some criteria could be called terrorism, but to others, they might be excluded. Coding enabled this varied analysis.

So, how does this help to define terrorism, and how do we apply it to current events? Let’s look at several recent events.

First, the killing of the policewoman and the injuries to pedestrians in Edmonton, Ontario in Canada was by a man who shot her, yelling ‘Alahu Akbar’, a common radical Islamists expression, an ISIS flag was found on the seat of his van, and he had been cited in social media in several places claiming solidarity with ISIS. He could certainly be called a ‘non-state actor’, and he at least claimed some political if not religious affinity to ISIS. Most will believe that his actions were not intended simply to kill the policewoman and injure other without reason. In terms of the final criteria, his actions in coming both murder and mayhem as well as injuries to the innocent pedestrians are well outside the norms of both domestic and international law.

Can we call this person a terrorist? A lone terrorist? Personally, I would vote for his inclusion in the database, even if the actual link to ISIS cannot be provided.

Conversely, looking at the gunman in Las Vegas, Nevada, making the same set of comparisons to the criteria is much harder. The man is probably a non-state actor, but we have no idea of his purpose in committing the crime; only that he was dedicated to whatever purpose he had by carefully planning his crime for days before the commission of it. Likewise, without knowing the purpose, we cannot attribute his actions against the people at the concert to some other group against which he looked on with enough disfavor to injure innocent people to make his statement. He certainly fulfilled the last criteria by committing large-scale murder.

The same type application of criteria occurs, or should occur before the term ‘terrorist’ is applied following some horrific crime. If we accept the views of Dumas (2013) and Laqueur (2000), the crimes are themselves tactics, designed to influence political, religious, or other behavior by those leaders whom the assailant cannot directly influence.

Coming full-circle to our original question, and the title of this article, “Is Terrorism the New Normal”?

The answer to that question remains complex. On the one hand, the answer is probably YES, when viewed from the perspective that these types of attacks will continue into the foreseeable future, perhaps get worse, and spawn myriad acts by those wanting attention from the media, those with significant serious mental illness, and those who seek to strike back for some perceived injustice, usually to themselves.

On the other hand, people should not live in constant fear that these types of activities will happen to them. The actions are so varied, so dispersed, and so asynchronous, it is impossible to pre-determine where, when, or how they will occur. People can only continue to live their lives with some degree of safety, observe their surroundings, and stay alert, but not coerced by the possibility of events happening to them.

Perhaps the time has come for some great national commission in each country, bringing together disparate political, social, religious, and economic views, to sit down and discuss how their society can live, be properly protected, and secure, laying the groundwork for a plan to address these issues of terrorism, without the usual arguments and rancor. Perhaps it is time to rethink how we want society to function.

If we do nothing, then terrorism can indeed become the new normal and rule our lives. Let’s agree on what it is and prepare; let’s also agree on what it is not, and treat those situations for that they are-crimes which earn punishment in a reasonable society.

July 14th, Bastille Day, is the National Independence Day celebration in France. It is the one day that all parts of France join together to celebrate "Liberte, Fraternite, Equalite" with massive events and fireworks, not unlike its adopted son, the United States.

This year, however, everything was different. Thousands descended on Nice, along the southern coast, near Monaco, to enjoy the parades, fireworks, and they were treated instead to the spectacle of a truck barrelling through crowds, killing at last count nearly 85 people, and injuring a similar number, some of who are in near-to-death circumstances. Bodies were strewn along the street, men, women, and even small children, run over until the truck eventually stopped, and the driver started shooting in all directions to kill even more. It was a truly horrific scene.

As horrible as the physical circumstances were, the implications of this latest attack are even more concerning when you look at some of the circumstances that seem to surround it as an act of terror. Several things come quickly to mind.

First, terrorism, by its nature, whether Radical Islamic Terrorism, as this seems to be, or other forms of similar activity, instills fear in people, communities and even entire nations by their actions. I have said many times in my articles that the methods terrorists use are 'asynchronous', that is they seldom do the same things in the same way every time. Rather, these terrorists choose different methods (i.e. trucks, bombs, guns, etc.) to prevent effective advanced planning, which might otherwise be possible. While they plan their activities in advance, the execution of those plans usually adds to the collective sense of fear in a community.

Take a look at France. First, the Charlie Hebdo attack in response to a cover showing Muhammad (Something considered sacrilegious by some in Islam) was an assault on a specific place for an announced purpose. That attack was followed by two in Belgium which concentrated on first a shopping mall and restaurant, and then an attempt to attack police, all by local terrorists. The situation then returned to France for the restaurant shootings, but this time it was different; they not only attacked one restaurant, but three places apart from each other, and the killings were not concentrated on one specific place, but the shooters this time simply went down the street killing and injuring indiscriminately.

The current attack was completely different, and in a city far from Paris where the other attacks took place, and by a completely different medium--a large truck with a driver bent on killing as many as possible, and then being killed himself. Again, a local person, although originally from Tunisia, according to the police.

The second aspect is the ability of the terrorists to blend into the community both before, and often after the crimes they commit. This is made easier when, as in France, there are enclaves which provide cover for the terrorists; this was the case in both Paris and Nice, both of which have large areas where French police and French Law give way to Shariah Law and rule. Here in the US, while these self-ruled areas are less common, the larger incidents have also occurred in areas with significant populations of immigrants from which the newly radicalized terrorists come, and receive support. These enclaves and protected areas make it difficult to either find the terrorists, if they escape, or identify them before they commit crimes. As in the latest case in Nice, while the person had committed relatively minor prior offenses, that did not place him on a high priority police watch list for any future actions.

Combining the availability of cover for the terrorists planning events, and the inability to plan effectively for actions in every possible scenario, it is clear that law enforcement is on the defensive--another facet of fear that works to the advantage of the terrorist who commits a crime and is perfectly willing to die for it. There is no simple answer or solution to this evolving phenomenon.

Once again the Obama news machine aiming for his legacy is probably caught in a lie. As the LA Times says, there is considerable skepticism, and for good reasons. Let's look at some statistics from various organization, taking Pakistan as the example.

The Journal of Investigative Journalism produced a chart showing all forms of deaths from Drones during the last Bush Administration, and into the Obama Administration JUST FOR PAKISTAN.As you can easily see, the numbers add up to much more than the 116 claimed by the Obama people.

Just to be fair, this second chart contrasts the Journal, other organizations, and the official estimates on the ground by the Pakistan Government.

There are very obvious differences here, far beyond honest pessimism. Remember, this is just Pakistan-- you have to add in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, to even get close to the Obama Administration numbers, and even then the numbers appear even more ridiculous.

Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is awarded the STUPID AWARD WITH CLUSTER for exceptionally rude, ignorant, and unnecessary comments in his speech at the United States Treasury Department following the horrific massacre of forty-nine innocent people ,along with the wounding of another nearly 50 people, many of them seriously injured. During his speech, Mr. Obama spent less that two minutes expressing the feelings of the Nation on the massacre, arguably the most important event of the day; and concentrating instead on irrelevant banking restrictions, gun control, and political gibberish directed at a presumptive candidate in the coming national election.

Mr. Obama showed particular disdain for the dead and injured, showing complete indifference to their plight, and that of their families. He took an opportunity to be the Great Healer of the Nation, and instead drove headlong into divisiveness and political rhetoric, which should have no place in public discourse during the evolving of these kinds of tragic events.

Mr. Obama, through his efforts, distracted the national discussion on reducing these situations, instead driving an even larger divide of bigotry and cultural baiting.

For his efforts, Mr. Obama is the unanimous choice of the selection committee for the STUPID AWARD WITH CLUSTER, the first time this level of award is presented, for his unique contributions to this situation, and the continuation of the Great National Nightmare which has marked his administration.

In his address on Tuesday, June 14th, President Obama went out of his way to discuss the importance of the term “Radical Islam”, indicating that use of the term does nothing to solve the problem of Terrorism. In that regard, he is correct, but unfortunately missed the point completely.

Critics of Obama’s policies have been hammering, both from the left to the right—liberal to conservative—that he needed to identify clearly what we Americans are facing as a threat. Specifically, many have called for Obama to indicate clearly that the threat is “Radical Islamic Terrorism”, or “Radical Islamic Jihad”, and not use other terms, such as “workplace violence”, or simply “extremism” in discussing this critical issue.

To frame the issues here, let’s look at what these terms mean.

Radical Islam, also called ‘Fundamentalist Islam’ is historically seen as an Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values (i.e. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam) in all spheres of life[i]. Basically, it is a movement to return to the original precepts of Islam defined by Muhammad in the Qur’an. These Islamists reject modernization in any form, but they concentrate primarily on their own people, and their own religious practices. The 1979 takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his fundamentalists, with the objective of turning Iran away from western modernism back toward fundamental Islam, is an excellent example of what we are calling Radical Islam.

Radical Islamic Terrorism, or Radical Islamic Jihad, takes these fundamental religious principles and moves them forward into another dimension. This type of movement, claiming to represent the mainstream of Islam, is dedicated to complete extermination of Western philosophy and culture, and installing a very conservative, fundamentalist form of Islam under its own version of the law- Shariah Law, with religious courts replacing those in the secular communities. These groups will use any means at their disposal toward that end, including warfare, guerrilla tactics, bombings, executions, etc.; anything which will instill uncertainty and fear into a population, eventually reducing their will to resist takeover.

These radicals are not mainstream members of Islam. They instead twist and pervert the words of the Qur’an to their own ends. Unfortunately, that is relatively easy to do, since there is no single ‘authoritative’ source for interpretation of their scriptures. Instead, individual religious leaders, Imams and Ayatollahs, provide their own interpretation for their followers. When these religious leaders profess fundamentalist views, they can easily encourage their adherents to follow their views and take actions that can cause significant damage, both physically and emotionally.

It is these, non-mainstream members of the Islamic Faith, and those who profess to adhere to the Islamic Faith, and feel they have the right to cause upheaval who are those we describe as Radical Islamic Terrorists; the term that much of the political spectrum across America wishes the President would use in his descriptions of the dangers we face. Instead, Obama has chosen to parse words carefully, dismiss the proper allocation of the term to these individuals and groups, and contributes to the increasing fear among the public.

It is equally important to differentiate other groups which may be inflicting terrorism on the people of the US, or any other country. A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of religion, or lack thereof. When some individual or group knowingly inflicts pain and suffering on others to gain control of their lives and make them subservient to the terrorists’ wishes, then these people should be called terrorists.

The use of the term Radical Islamic Terrorist is not simply political jargon; when well-established that some fundamentalist group, or some person claiming association with such a group commits an atrocity, they should be labelled for what they are. If the terrorists claim a religious affiliation publicly, it is perfectly appropriate to include the religious connotation in labeling their actions. The only political implication is when a leader who know who is committing these atrocities either refuses to correctly identify them, or falsely mislabels them out of a sense of political expediency.

In a free society, its people have the right to know the adversity they face, and they look toward their leaders for the correct information they need to understand what they face.

Listening to all the rhetoric coming out of the White house, including his latest interview with Good morning America yesterday (6-13-2016), it appears that US, in terms of Obama, has several problems:

He has become basically a caretaker in office, refusing to take stands on issues (Except, of course, gun control), and is simply waiting in hope that world does not fall down around his shoulders before the end of his term. LEGACY is most important now.

His consistent refusal to admit that much domestic terrorism is linked to international terrorism is appalling, and not rational. During the ABC interview, he carefully parsed his words to indicate his view that this was a lone gunman, not affiliated with anyone, and certainly not ISIL. Yet, from what information the FBI has already provided, it is clear that he had early and consistent desires to follow the radical Islamic terror path—trying to support ISIL in Syria, speaking about his friend who died there, being investigated for the very things Obama claims he was not connected with, and finally calling to 911 to proclaim his public allegiance to ISIL. That set of information seems awfully persuasive.

Using his public press conference on the Orlando Massacre to again discuss gun control was a major political error—one which could cause serious problems for the Democrats in November. Virtually every public social media source has made mincemeat of his statement, causing his adherents to rush to his defense. What is interesting here is the very low numbers of those defenders this time.

Waiting until Thursday to even go to Orlando, and refusing to discuss the issue with the Governor of Florida directly is even more egregious. In times of crisis, we are Americans first, and political animals a distinct second. Obama either does not understand that, or could not care less. There is little wiggle room between the two, and Obama has opted for playing down the tragedy for whatever reasons he has in his head.

In times of crisis, our citizens look to their leaders, particularly the President for guidance, support, and compassion. This man is showing none of those attributes, thinking perhaps that downplaying events, as he usually does, will make them go away. Unfortunately, they will not until we decide to actively do something about terrorism in any form.

This man does not have the fire of a true American—one willing to fight and die for his country. Instead, he has the cold political heart of a politician who only understands how to get votes, and keep them. This is legacy time for him; he will stay hidden in the White House to keep a low profile that will not hurt that legacy. The American people will probably suffer further events between now and January 20th, 2017, when he at long last takes his final exit from the White House into ignominious retirement. To that I say, GOOD RIDDANCE TO A BAD PRESIDENT.

This week’s newsstand issue (April 21-27) of Epoch Times has a lead article by Joshua Philipp, “ISIS versus Al-Qaeda”. Philipp posits that there is a growing internal battle between the two for control of the Jihadi Movement. There I agree; that battle has been growing since early 2014, when the ISIS leadership announced it would no longer be part of the overall al-Qaeda network, and the al-Qaeda leadership basically said ‘good riddance’.

The question here is the implications of this split on the ever-increasing impact of both groups, despite what the ineffectual Obama Administration may be spouting to the world. This split may be simply one more fracturing of the movement created by Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri years ago, which has had several previous ‘separations’, but none with more public consequences than this. The death of Bin Laden, and the recovery of some message traffic in his Abbottabad fortress showed the increasing disconnection of al-Qaeda Central from the various arms of the Movement, including that of the al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, which many credit as the precursor of ISIS, so splits are occurring, but it is the impact of this split that has many analysts worried

Philipp discusses at length the differences between the two in their approach to global Jihad; ISIS is now at the dangerous stage, as was al-Qaeda ten years ago. The chief prize, the Caliphate, eluded Bin Laden, who, while likening himself to Saladin, the medieval Muslim conqueror of Jerusalem during the Crusades, never achieved the standing or control of the territory now effectively controlled by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS and self-proclaimed ‘Kaliffa’.

In many ways, al-Baghdadi has a demonstrable claim; his forces control much of Syria, a large swath of Iraq, some parts of Libya, and infiltrations of varying degrees in several other parts of the world. These people follow him as a prophet—the successor to Muhammed—and their sometimes excessive ‘religious zeal’, which I prefer to call simply murderous tendencies, is well known. Philipp brings much of this out in his excellent article. This is one piece worth reading.

Next Wednesday, the 27th at the Catholic University of America Bookstore, I will be discussing this very subject from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM and please feel free to come by and discuss, object, argue, or even listen. The bookstore is the Barnes and Noble Bookstore at Michigan Avenue, NE in Washington DC opposite the Catholic University.

Following the recent Republican debates, the question seems to be constantly in the air that Islamics (or more properly Muslims) hate us (The Americans) and we hate them with an equal vengeance. But is that true or even fair? I'm not so sure about that.

It is true that a number of people in the Muslim world dislike the US. They have stated myriad reasons for doing so, usually starting with our support for Israel, and our fairly constant condemnation of the Palestinians for wanting to get some other own land back. They disagree with our position, some considering it interference, others a defense of something indefensible (Since they see the State of Israel as gaining land stolen from the Palestinians.

Those likes or dislikes over Israel (Call it hate if you wish)by the Palestinians are understandable, in that (1) The dislike is shared between two peoples actively engaged between themselves over a specific issue, and (2) both sides have some part of history on their side. Not all Muslims hate the Israelis; some nearby countries such as Jordan and Egypt have found ways to peacefully co-exist. Others will never do that, will continue to oppose the existence of the State of Israel, but learned their lessons in the three major wars, so they also co-exist, if not peacefully at least in a sense of equal tension.

There are also some states, such as Iran that bluster and threaten, as Iran did with their recent missile/rocket launches with a hatred of Israel message on the sides of the missiles. But is that bluster, or is that a real threat? Does it rise to the level of being true hatred, or are we still in the time of intense dislike? I would argue that hatred eventually boils over into violence, and that those who commit the violence are those that we should truly call "Radical". The rest are no worse that those in the world who shoot off their mouth with no intention of rising up to cause harm. That does not mean the radicals who perpetrate car-bombing or other devastating attacks are not important--it certainly is the opposite--but it does mean that only PART of the Muslim population commits these acts--not the entire Muslim World? Here, I think evidence points to a small, radical group ,and not the entire Muslim community worldwide.

What we see routinely in the media is a subset of people of the Islamic faith who have taken a very extreme view of the Qur'an, developed a program around it that fosters violence and devastation, and simply announced that it is 'Allah's will.' What these radicals do is horrific; we will not discount that. They deserve to be hunted down and punished for that they do, and their leaders should suffer the same fate.

People tend to rush to judgement when something horrific happens. During World War I, the Germans as a people became 'The Huns", and were universally despised, even though only a small portion of Germany's leadership was truly responsible. The people in general were punished following the war for what their leaders had done, resulting in unrest leading in turn to World War II and the rise of Hitler. During World War II, we nearly universally hated the Japanese for the atrocities some committed throughout Asia. It took years to separate fact from fiction and have people again accepting of the average Japanese citizen who had no control over that war. We do not call all Cambodians animals for what Pol Pot and his adherents did to a large part of the population in the 60's and 70's, nor do we hate all Russians for either the Soviet Era or since. We simply say those things happened; blame the leaders, and move on.

Looking back into history, we should be hating the Egyptians, the British for what they did in Palestine; the Catholic Church for the Crusades and the Inquisition; and the Protestants for everything happening since the Reformation. Obviously we do not generalize in these instances, so why generalize and call as all who practice Islam terrorists? They are not. Besides, if we did, who else would be left ot hate? A few penguins in the Antarctic.

There is nothing wrong with saying that the subset of Muslims who have hatred in their hearts, and act out that hate are radicals. it really matters not if you call them Radical Islamists, or Radical Muslims; what does matter is that the term is applied to those specific people doing specific things--and not generalities designed to simply whitewash a people.

One person I respect immensely is Commissioner Mark Rowley of Scotland Yard. His assessments on potential threats over the past several years have been so accurate and incisive that the description probably should be 'simply amazing'. In his latest report, cited in the Guardian USA Edition today, the Commissioner expresses his views that the attacks of ISIS (Daesh) are increasing in both intensity and complexity. As he indicates, “In recent months we’ve seen a broadening of that (the attacks), much more plans to attack western lifestyle. Going from that narrow focus on police and military as symbols of the state to something much broader. And you see a terrorist group which has big ambitions for enormous and spectacular attacks, not just the types that we’ve seen foiled to date.”

The Commissioner brings up a very interesting point here. Daesh, in my view, has been feeling its way along in both the UK, and the US, committing to ever-increasing attacks, and targeting police, other civil responders, and now the general public to increase the tension and fear among the populace on what might occur next. More importantly, they are learning from their activities, becoming even more capable, having more lethal weapons, and striking out in more asynchronous ways, trying to prevent law enforcement from anticipating their next activities.

Form Americans, the message seems clear--what they can do in Britain they can do in the United States, France, Germany, or any other Western Nation which chooses to fight their advances in the Middle East. Inflicting pain on us is supposed to reduce our commitment to sending them to heaven without virgins. it will not happen.

Read the story in the Guardian - Rowley Interview, and see for yourself what the Commissioner sees in the future. It is well worth the read to be prepared, and not surprised as the levels of attacks increase.

The news is full of items potentially impacting the world of terrorism. here are just a few for your reading pleasure:

Abolish the $100 (US) Bill and reduce terrorism, says a study in this week's Time Magazine. Former president Lawrence Summers of Harvard University discusses a study conducted at (Where else) The Harvard University that abolishing this bill, along with several other large denominations would reduce terrorism, drug trafficking. and other criminal activity. An interesting thought, but probably not very practical. Forgers of American and other currencies have been doing it for years. We see evidence at times that China, North Korea, now ISIS and others are taking over printing plants in various countries and printing our currency. If we stopped with the $100 bill, they would simply go to the next level down. Instead, make it really impossible to reproduce. That still will not be foolproof, but it will reduce forgeries.

Iran will continue producing as much oil as it chooses, reports Reuters. The Iranians, flush with the US Dollars provided by the Obama Administration when it smiled, crossed it fingers, and agreed to the Nuclear Arms deal, is now able to legally produce as much oil as it chooses. Having been ostracized by OPEC during the embargoes, it does not feel it owes those people anything. In some ways, you can understand their perspective; in others, their continued pumping of oil will keep prices very low--good for the consumer, but not for the producers. There is a cost curve here which says that producing oil is eventually not cost-effective. In the meanwhile, Iran continues to bring in more revenue for its 'peaceful causes.' I also have a large bridge I want to sell. Any takers?

Russia will shortly start providing Iran with new S-300, reports the International Business Times; those missiles are intended for defense of the Iranian Homeland, so they say. The missiles, Russia Originally agreed to provide the S-300 air defense missile system to Iran in a deal signed in 2007. However, the worldwide arms embargo delayed delivery for nearly eight years. Only after the signing of the new agreement was the sale put back on schedule, and a total of five systems are expected to be delivered by the Russian Government over the next several months. The Iranian Defense Ministry is arranging a ceremony for the first delivery of the system.

There is a lot of talk around the conference tables about a true coalition, led by an Arab Army--something really needed to defeat ISIS. Coalitions of the past, led by the United States were effective against al-Qaeda, but ISIS is something completely different. These are true revolutionaries, not insurgents, and they respect nothing,not even their own supposed religious heritage. Instead, they use that heritage as a mean for recruitment, while they savage even their own adherents to gain ground and power. That is not religion, that is terrorism at its prime.

However, the question still remains--can a Pan-Arab Army be formed from among the myriad states in the Middle East that will move to combat ISIS?

An article in Eurasia Review says it is not possible, and this article is from the Iranian Shi'ite perspective. After all, Iran would need to be involved; its Army and Revolutionary Guards are among the world's best fighters, and they have the means, if not the will, combat this basic Islamic evil. Javad Heirannia of the The Institute for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran discusses the issue from the Shi'ite perspective and the possibilities here. His premise is that the majority of the fighting would be done by Sunni's--Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and even that is subject to speculation. The rest of the nations in the region would provide mostly funding.

In his assessment he points out many of the political and religious arguments against such an army, and its probable eventual failure from the difficulties facing it. While I hasten to suggest that his analysis be taken with the proverbial 'grain of salt' since it is basically one-sided, many of his observations are based reality. Religion counts in that part of the world.

An interesting read, nonetheless, and one which might give some perspective to the difficulties in organizing such a force. You can read it here.

CNN published an interesting article yesterday morning (2-10-2016) on the perils facing many people beset by terrorism, and their alternatives. Several of their examples, such as Mali and other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, have a real dilemma on which way to turn. In these cases, the governments are either corrupt, or despots who allow no real freedom for their people. Insurgencies attempt to fight the government and eventually, seeing the futility in peaceful protest, turn violent. The people are caught in the middle.

Any economist will tell you, through simple cost-benefit analysis, that when a people are subjugated in this way, their decisions on how to act or react are often in favor of the insurgency or terrorist group, since they are safer, more protected, and insulated from their corrupt or oppressive government. That may not be good, but it is often the best they can do.

The devastating consequences of the attacks in Paris this past Friday go far beyond the physical pain an suffering, the death of innocent people, and the seeming impossibility of stopping the ISIS move into Europe. What is really at stake here is the continued dominance of the culture, ethics, and sanity.

There is an increasing vacuum in the current world order--it has no real leader. For many decades, the President of the United States was considered one of, if not the primary world leader, but the current President has abrogated that position to others. Perhaps he believes he is still a leader, but be assured all the signs are there that he is quickly turning the United States into a follower nation. His brand of 'leadership' in any other time frame would be considered simply cowardice--and the American people need to understand the implications of his policies.

First, understand that the emergence of ISIS and the Caliphate is not something new. Look back to the 9th-10th-and 11th centuries to see the rise of Islam, and the extension of that religious and political power from its origins in the Arabian Peninsula, through the Middle East, into the Balkans, and then upward and Westward into Europe. Only the Army of Charles Martel in France stopped that surge, moved them back, and reduced the threat. Also remember that the threat has recurred over the centuries, in Spain and elsewhere since that time.

The concept is to regain the territories lost from earlier expansions, and regain the lands of Islam. They believe it is their destiny to rule, and any loss of life--particularly non-believer loss of life is irrelevant to the ultimate goals, as stated in the Qu'ran and tradition. Death and pillage are secondary to the need to regain the lands some Islamists still believe is rightfully theirs. Those aims are no universal aims--most who practice Islam are peaceful people, contributors to local society, and firm in their religious beliefs, but no ideologues or fanaticists who use religion as an excuse.

Islamic radicalism, most recently expressed by the hoors inflicted on Paris by ISIS, is a real threat, and requires decisive leadership to counteract, and destroy it. That form of fanaticism does not go away by calling it something else, and it does not go away by withdrawing from the world stage, rather than addressing the issues. Aside from a few ineffective air strikes, and killing a few side players in the ISIS ranks, Obama has done nothing to reduce or eliminate the threat, just as he did with al-Queda. Obama ordered the killing of Usama bin Laden long after the intelligence community knew he was not longer effectively in charge of the movement--only its spiritual leader. Spiritual leaders in that movement are a dime-a-dozen--he was replaced, and quickly. The same is happening with ISIS.

Obama needs to worry less about his legacy and more about protecting democracy--if he is truly a world leader. He need to act like a leader and not like a coward. He has the most powerful military in the world, and he is dismantling it rather than using it to fight the demonstrated enemy. That is not a world leader--that is a world-class coward.

Speaking to a group of Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative Fellows at the White House, President Barack Obama said that under his leadership, the United States has become the most respected country in the world. The White house did not provide a source for his statement, but it seems well at odds with other sources who recently published their estimates.

First, according to a 2014 survey conducted by the Reputation Institute and covered by Forbes, the top nod goes to Switzerland, with the US falling to 22nd place. The top 22 countries are shown on the chart below.

Then, the BBC published its listing of those with the most influence, covering roughly the same period. That chart can be seen below, with the full story here.

This chart shows the US 8th in influence. However, influence does not connote respect, only power and capabilities.

That still leaves us with the evidence of the President's remark. Listen to the entire presentation here.

My personal perspective is that this speech is simply another attempt at trying to fashion a legacy of some sort from a presidency otherwise in shambles. Despite diligent efforts, the White House cannot point to anything truly lasting created by Obama and his minions--other than discord, divisiveness, and civil strife.

Let's look a just a few examples:

Immigration: Hundreds of thousands of illegals let into the country, given papers, disappearing into the various states, with few even appearing for immigration hearings--where they are even held. The courts have most of his 'executive actions'; tied up in litigation, and many legal experts suggest he violated the Constitution and several Federal laws to do what he did. IMMIGRATION REFORM IN SHAMBLES.

Healthcare: The Affordable Care Act could have been a well-thought out and beneficial program, advancing healthcare to nearly universal coverage. All Obama had to do was work with the Congress-both sides of the Congress--to develop a plan that would work. Instead, it became a Democrat showpiece, not mired in legal challenges, further delays, a horrible introduction, billions of dollars wasted trying to make it work. The Supreme Court and myriad other courts are considering those challenges, and many are expected to go against the Government.

Insurance companies are beginning to announce major rate increases, and people are also beginning to realize they get nothing from the insurance companies due to high deductibles. They continue to pay for their care, and they pay premiums to insurance companies, essentially for a piece of paper worth noting unless you can generate enough care to offset the deductible. HEALTHCARE IN A CONTINUING STATE OF DISARRAY.

Veterans' Care: The Veterans Administration is in shambles--trying to recover from several scandals, all related to the lack of quality and timely healthcare to the Nations' veterans. Thousands of veterans injured further by the lack of fidelity by the Government. The perpetrators simply shielded from public view and very few fired. VETERANS HEALTHCARE IN SHAMBLES.

Internal Revenue Service: The IRS has not been used as a political football since Richard Nixon was forced from office in 1974. Under the Obama Administration, it violated ethics,m privacy, lied to the Congress, hid evidence, and continues to harass those who don't agree with the administration. The latest affront has been the lack of security on taxpayer information. No major figure fired. Lois Lerner took the Fifth Amendment and the Department of Justice has refused to prosecute. IRS IN SHAMBLES.

Military Readiness and Effectiveness: Perhaps nowhere is the failures of the Obama Administration more evident than his cowardly use of his powers as "Commander-in-Chief" to effectively remove the US from the world stage as a major power. He has destroyed the careers of a generation of senior and middle-grade officers, dismissing and retiring those who disagree with his cowardly lion stances, and surrounds himself with syncophants who mimic his ridiculous pronouncements. DEFENSE IN TOTAL DISARRAY.

How does an administration which has all these problems, and can't even get the Sultan of Bahrain to come to a summit on ISIS (He considered a horse race in Britain more important) consider itself the most respected nation on earth? The notion is plain silly, and you have to wonder where Obama's speechwriters get their information.

Obama will be remembered for what he really was: A FAILURE OF A COLOSSAL DEGREE. it will take years for the US to recover from his mis-administration.

Professor Ben-Meir suggests that ongoing efforts have borne less fruit, and that a new approach is needed. Currently, the two commonest approaches involve either assimilation—encouraging strongly that recent immigrants adopt the customs and culture of their new country as quickly as possible, or, as an alternative, creating conclaves where immigrants can live and work in their own cultural environment with little interference by the central authorities. We have seen recently in France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom that the second approach—conclaves—clearly is not working.

We have seen similar results in Minneapolis, here in the US, and other cities, where immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants are congregating in small conclaves, and avoiding the lager communities. This has all the appearances of a ‘hands-off’ policy by governmental authorities, and can easily lend itself to creating and encouraging the environment which will foster and support radicalization among disaffected youth.

In a departure from this approach, Professor Ben-Meir suggested that integration rather than assimilation is possibly a better answer. He defines integration as ‘a mutual recognition and respect of the other—a harmonization that includes difference rather than denies it.’ Further, he suggests that not enough effort is made to understand the psychological aspects of radicalization, something important in its own right, since there appears from what we already know that there is no single reason why youth choose to become radicalized, and otherwise peaceful people.

While I obviously canno0t speak for other nations, I can suggest that my own country and its leaders need to spend more time trying prevent youth radicalization with innovative approaches, as opposed to FBI stings that are often too late to prevent others from pursuing a similar course.

Processor Ben-Meir has a lot of good information here that is worth considering. You can read the entire article here.

In Part 1, I discussed the distance between the current administration and Israel, and asked the question WHY is it being allowed to happen. In this piece it's time for a discussion of one of the primary reasons--the emergence of Iran as a nuclear power.

For several years, the Obama Administration has been trying to get its arms around the problem of Iran, and its relations with the rest of the world. Most of you know the history--we supported the Shah of Iran, then in power, through the mid 1970's, when he was overthrown, and replaced eventually by an Ayatollah-based Islamic State, led first by Ayatollah Khomeni, and eventually his successor Ayatollah Khamenei. Both diatribed long and hard against the West and the US in particular, while continuing to court some western for arms and oil sales. Eventually, sanctions began to cut into their sales, and the economy began to dip. Short history--read the rest in Wikipedia

Where are we now?

Negotiations concerning Iranian nuclear capabilities have been ongoing since 2014, with Secretary of State John Kerry as the lead US negotiator. So far, what have these negotiations achieved? The short answer is basically NOTHING.

Here is the scoreboard:

Round of Negotiations

Number of Sessions

Achievements

First Round (2014)

6 Sessions

Framework

Extension for further talks

Second Round (2014)

3 Sessions

Agreement on second extension to 2015

Third Round (2015)

4 Sessions thus far

1 – US-Iran Bilateral Session

Announcement “Results will be known later”

No Agreement to Date

Now, if you believe the Obama Administration and Secretary Kerry, these are very sensitive negotiations, designed to curtail, but not eliminate nuclear capability in Iran (at least for 10 years). To get an agreement, and make it work, several things are necessary, the foremost being the elimination of the threat from Israel that they will bomb and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.

How do you get Israel to agree to such tactics, but not involve them in the talks? There are two answers to that question. The first, a diplomatic one, is that you exert influence on the Israeli Government to reduce tensions by agreeing to maintain a low profile while the talks continue. Of course, the ideal solution is to have Israel as a partner in those talks--something the Islamic fundamentalists will not allow.

The second alternative is to 'arrange' to have a new government elected, without the people most opposed to dealing with Iran. Since Benjamin Netanyahu is the most vocal, the logic is to eliminate him as a stumbling block, and work to get a more moderate coalition in power. Unfortunately that backfired, and did so badly for Obama despite the loud and continuing rhetoric by Obama and his minions, and at least one of his p[olitical operatives going to Israel to work with opposition parties.

The American and Israeli press have both made this disagreement between the two political leaders into a rolling, and now bitter controversy. The Obama administration first releases details of the Israeli nuclear program, despite long-standing agreements not to do so. I already mentioned the Breitbart article, and there were a number of others, mostly just before the scheduled speech in Mid-March.

Arutz Sheva, the Israeli National News, correctly pointed out that the document de-classified by the Department of Defense only included information on Israel, not Italy, Germany, and other Western country programs. Those other programs were completely redacted, leading a logical person to conclude that it was a direct jab at the Israeli PM.

More importantly, the 'outing' of Israel was supposed to help the negotiations and get rid of Netanyahu with his own people. Both backfired. Netanyahu is even stronger than before, and now the iranians have to worry about a nuclear-armed Israel (as if they were not already), giving them less reason to agree to shelve their own program.

Several days after the speech, and the re-election of Netanyahu, Obama went on a television interview where he stated that the historic agreements between Israel and the US might need revision, and that the US just might not continue to block UN Security Council resolution affecting Israel. Officially that was because of the statements by Netanyahu that he would not support a two-state solution during his tenure, but the Obama remarks really drove an even deeper wedge between the US and Israel on broader issues.

The bottom line here seems to be that there will be little more than formalities with Netanyahu until a new occupant of the White house takes office. My wild guess is that Kerry will get only another extension and no agreement; the Iranians will continue to enrich uranium and plutonium; the Israelis will rely much less on the hollow US promises, and the world will move closer to a regional war in the Mideast.

In the next part, we will look at other issues separating the US and Israel. In the meanwhile, a key question to answer is can anyone see some kind of logical diplomacy on the part of the Obama Administration here, other than to secure some kind of legacy late in his otherwise failed administration?

Obama's Policy on Israel - A National Disaster Waiting to Happen - Part I

"Welcome to regime change, Obama-style. There are few opportunities to change the mullahcracy in Tehran. But Jerusalem may be another story. By accepting Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint meeting of Congress — now widely seen as a real bungle — the prime minister has given the Obama administration an opening. And you can bet the White House is taking advantage to make it unmistakably clear that Bibi is bad for the U.S.-Israeli relationship."[Foreign Policy Magazine, Feb 12, 2015][View here]

The Aaron Miller piece in Foreign Policy outlines the completely strained relationship between Barack Obama and the Prime Minister of Israel. That kind of fracture is problematic, not just as a spat between politicians with markedly differing views, but also a question of the continuing deterioration of US-foreign relations in general. Stated simply, Obama is doing a poor job as the self-described 'Leader of the Free World".

The US has supported Israel since its creation in 1948. it has provided arms, billions in various kinds of other foreign aid, and historically staked its reputation on the continued existence of Israel in an otherwise mostly Arab Middle East. That decision was not taken lightly by successive administrations, both Democrat and Republican, and was based at least in part by the determination that the Jewish people have a homeland where they can settle peacefully, and live quietly with their neighbors.

While I hasten to add that the subsequent history has been a rocky road, both for the Israels and the Arabs, it has been the staunch support of the West, combined with the acknowledgement of moderate Arabs that peaceful co-existence is possible, as it had existed for centuries before, that provided the 'glue' keeping the often shaky relationships among the parties from coming out too often into battle. There is no question that both sides, Israeli and Arab have committed acts considered abhorrent by the other, while still maintaining a fragile cease fire, if not uneasy peace.

The US was historically the buffer zone in the middle. Regardless of which party was in office in Israel, the US stood ready to support the people of Israel. Sadly, at least in the current administration, this no longer seems to be the case.

It is not the first time the US has tried to influence an Israeli election to produce a prime minister and government that might more closely adhere to preferred US policies for the region. it is also not the first time that Israeli politicians have tried to sway American opinion. They often due so, usually through intermediaries, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and have been very successful in changing US views, particularly in the Congress. So, fair is fair--both sides do it.

What has also historically been the case is that US administrations have recognized that the most important factor to consider is the citizens of Israel, the existence of the country, and the preservation of peace, or at least not having war, in the area. Since the advent of the Obama administration this perspective has changed dramatically.

Obama seems to have a vision that the title given him as "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces really means commander-in-chief of everything, in the US and the world. His attitude is that 'anything I want I get--i am the most powerful person in the world', or something close to it. Everyone else has to adhere to his rules, like the kids playing football have to give an extra kick to the kid who owns the ball.

In the past few weeks, especially, the Obama people, and the C-I-C himself have seemingly decided that they will show Israel their power, snubbing the Netanyahu speech before the Congress, while enthusiastically endorsing the speech of the Afghan President. Declassifying the information on the Israeli nuclear program, announced in several outlets, including Breitbart, just before the Netanyahu speech.

The Breitbart article indicated in part, "The Pentagon declassified sections covering Israel’s nuclear program, but “kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document,” [NOTE: Breitbart received the in formation, in part from an Israel National News report]. "The 386-page top-secret memo, titled, “Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations,” goes into great detail about how Israel turned into a nuclear power in the 1970s and 80s."

“As far as nuclear technology is concerned the Israelis are roughly where the U.S. was in the fission weapon field in about 1955 to 1960,” the Breitbart article continued. "The report was written by the Institute for Defense Analysis in 1987, which was federally funded and contracted by the Pentagon. Israel is “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,”the report states. The report commends that the Israelis found “ingeniously clever” solutions to solve its problems in advancing the nuclear program, largely due to the “ingenious Israeli inventions” at a “key research and development laboratory in Israel."

Why declassify the report just before the speech? To embarass the Israeli Prime Minister. That may be a political ploy, but what does it potentially due to the region or the Israeli people? Combine that with multiple other snubs and comments by Obama and his administration and you have a serious problem. In the next part of the article, I will look at the links with Iran.

The next presidential election is coming quickly upon us and, thankfully, the coward in the White House cannot legally run. That does not mean he will not do a lot of damage between now and the time he walks down the Capitol stairs back into oblivion and community organizing. Personally, I think he will try to do some damage and these are my predictions:

In another stunning reversal for our beleagered cowardly lion commander-in-chief, the second largest city in one of Obama's model democracies has fallen to the Houthi Islamic Radicals. The city of Taiz, a major city on the road to Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, fell apparently without a shot, and included the Houthi gaining control of the regional airport.

The Obama administration, the same people who claim that al-Qaeda is dying now that Usama bin-Laden is dead, had used Yemen for the past couple of years as a model for the region. The US Fleet was ported there, and the country was a stepping-off point for special ops in other parts of the region. Looks like the administration was wrong--again.

The real question here is how the dynamics of the region will change, as the Shi'ite leaning Houthi and others feel emboldened in the face of a constantly retreating United States. We don't have much credibility left in the region, yet this president still talks big, claims a huge coalition of partners, but produces no real action to stem the tide of these ISLAMIC RADICALS.

Almond says, "The attack by home-grown terrorists struck fear and disgust into the rest of the population - and by murdering tourists, they took deadly aim at Tunisia’s key money-earner. However, their brazen assault on the Parliament and museum complex in the heart of the capital also revealed their basic weakness. Tunisia’s reservoir of murderous extremists is too small to risk an uprising - though sadly it’s big enough for atrocities - which means the country’s fledgling democracymight be strengthened if it can face down the enemy within."

His observations are particularly interesting at this juncture of our American folly that we are fighting ISIS and winning, thus saving the world for the future. Of course, as events have seen that is not really true, but then, it might happen in the future anyway.

What is happening though is the rise of small groups of radical extremists who, without the resources or networks to force governmental change directly, can often do so by indirect means, such as those employed in Tunisia. Radicals do not like the confining space of a prosperous, organized, and moderate government. In that type of environment, people are comfortable, they enjoy life, and see themselves in a brighter future--however long that may take.

Terrorists, conversely, have no future in peaceful society. They exist in turmoil, and they find ways to perpetuate and increase that turmoil for their own ends. In Tunisia, the new, moderate government has made great strides in raising the standard of living for their people, and providing peace. People do not rise up to ideology when they are being fed, cared for, and can work.

Governments exist to provide those services and support the environment and culture, one which maintains that comfort zone for its people. Terrorists strike at the Government to disrupt and destroy the faith of the people in the Government. In this case, as Almond reported, the group in Tunisia is so small, it cannot launch a violent overthrow of the Government. it is simply too small at present. Instead, it acts indirectly to create upheaval and fear in the people while depriving the Government of one of its most needed assets--tourist dollars. In that regard, they did an outstanding job.

Cruise ships were leaving the harbor of Tunis immediately after the attack; two of them leaving people and their families who had been injured in the attack itself on the Bardo Museum. Virtually every news outlet in the world duly reported on the happenings, and people cancelled future trips in droves--or at least until the unrest subsides.

The real question is "Who are these radicals?"

According to Almond, "They were pioneers of the wave of jihadis who have recently gone to fight in Syria and Iraq. But they seemed like any group of twenty-somethings, their mobile phones always at hand. As much as Islamic fundamentalism, a search for adventure had lured them across the Mediterranean to a foreign war."

"These born-again Muslims, who are turning against their Western idols," Almond Continues, "are exactly the type to go over the edge into violence against the place they had once dreamed of joining. Jobless young men in dusty towns are preyed on by preachers offering a gateway to paradise and a way to assert themselves against the West and its local allies. The fundamentalists consider poverty to be their best recruiting-sergeant; the recession, which hit post revolution when the Europeans left, is radicalizing young Tunisians."

What we have then, is a group of young idealists, well-traveled, and experienced in Jihad, who have returned from the wars, but still want to be involved. They already have the training, experience, and zeal, but they need the impetus, the coaxing to do the same in their own country. They look for opportunity, and the locals who oppose the government as too-western, provide them the fertile ground., These young people are used for the purposes of others who stay in the background like a snake, waiting to strike later.

Every country has small groups of those who wish to disrupt and replace government or society with something more to their personal liking. The trouble is they are like the snakes who lie in wait--all too often, the first inking is when they strike and that is often, as in Tunisia, too late.

The Obama Administration is running its mouth about the need to determine root causes why ISIS is doing what it is doing in the Middle East. The State Department has already decided the approach is to find out and then get jobs for the ISIS fighters so they will no longer kill, burn, and execute their victims. it's an easy solution, they seem to believe.

Unfortunately, there is not one, but two issues here. Let's look at them briefly.

The first is root cause. Determining root cause is supposed to get to the base reasons why someone does something, or wants to do something in the future. No one goes out and tackles anything major without a reason--even if that reason is not a good one, it is still a reason. it is important to get to the root cause of the current ISIS situation--but to figure out how not to have something similar happen in the future.

Conversely, there is the need to root out ISIS--go where they are and eliminate them before they do more damage. To do that, you have to recognize WHO they are, and WHAT they are. In my view, they are a group of animals who, under the cover of Islam, are justifying killing and burning as their attempt to do what they think the Prophet says in the Kuran. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In this instance, it takes rooting out first, before or while determining root cause, and preventing any further genocide and killing sprees by ISIS/ISIL Unfofrtunte4ly, doing that task takes courage, and not pointless meetings in the White House discussing arcane, academic topics having no bearing on what needs to be done here.

Some time ago in these pages, I started to discuss the case, pro and con, for the impeachment of Barack Obama. I stopped because, frankly, this man has left so little mark on anything that he almost seems to be phantasm instead of a President of the United States.

Perhaps this lack of association with anything accomplished, positive and negative, by his administration is a well thought out strategy to craft an unassailable legacy as a leader. Perhaps he truly does not understand what could have been his unique place in history-- which he has now pretty much trashed. perhaps his experience as a community organizer is simply not up to the level of leadership necessary to lead what used to be the greatest nation in the world.

Whatever the reason, Barack Obama, and his administration are rapidly reaching the level of incompetance and malfeasance history has recorded for the administrations of Ulysses S. Grant, and Warren G. Harding. Both had multiple scandals, multiple cabinet resignations, and history has not give them a place among great, near great, or even adequate presidents.

Barack Obama has wasted the public's time with his stupidity, his lack of conern for the Consitution, and the laws of the land, his inability to understand how to lead rather campaign. His record is replete with mis-steps, unconcern for the law, ignorance of the law, and disdain for the other EQUAL branches of government.

What has he done?

1- He left four Americans to die in Bengazi, and then had his administration cover it up. All the while, he was off preparing for a political speech in Las Vegas the next day.

2- He destroyed the economy with his ill-advised, and secret development of Obamacare, with its crippling taxes, changes, and lies about how the American middle class will be better off. Most will never get beyond their deductibles with his insurance, and end up spending even more than in the past. In turn, they will get less adequate care, pay for care they don't need, and pay fines if they don't voluntarily subscribe to his bailout of the insurance industry.

3- His administration used the Internal Revenue Service to stifle the First American rights of conservatives and others who don't agree with his liberal, reactionary views. His IRS director was forced to resign, and the director of the unit involved in denying the conservatives their tax exemptions was cited for Contempt of Congres, but still allowed to retire with full benefits.

4- He and his administration allowed America's veterans to be denired their access to prompt healthcare, while publicly claiming he was working for their benefit. His Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Under-Secretary for Health Care were forced out while the real culprits continue to run the VA.

5- His Attorney-General became the first sitting Chief Law enforcement officer of the US to be cited for Contempt of Congress for his refusal to submit to oversight of the Fast and Furious Program of DHS, approving the lying and deception by that Attorney-General.

6- He traded what appears to be a traitor -- a deserter from the US Army -- for five of the hardest, and most violent criminals at Guantanamo, not informing the Congress, as required under the law, and then sending his administration minions out to defned his actions.

There are a number of other failures of this president that contribute to the overall perception that he is incompetant, unable to be honest and forthright with the American people who elected him, and who trusted him to 'Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States'. In all of this he has failed, and should be impeached and removed from office.

Some years ago, I happened to have the opportunity to listen to Walid Phares speak at the US National Defense University in Washington DC on the topic of National Policy. For those of you who are acquainted with Dr. Phares, it is clear that he is no radical; rather a dedicated, studied, and relatively conservative voice on the issues of the day--we probably in better days would have called him 'balanced' in his views.

On this particular day, he was speaking on the creation of National Strategy, and how that strategy is constructed. At the center of concentric circles is something called National Purpose, which are the basic ethical standards and obligations were have as a republic, and are expected to use as guiding principles for our governmental actions. Radiating out to the next concentric circle we find National Interest, those more specific principles we hold that relate to how we choose to make decisions on actions in specific cases. It is often the case that we might be, as a Nation, concerned about something, because our National Purpose as a democracy tells us that an event is wholly un-democratic in nature. Our National Interest, however, may indicate that this kind of event is not high on the radar, deserving an immediate response.

Indeed, when some event or policy does rise to a level that the issue could impact on our National Interest, then we evaluate how to respond, based on another of the principles Phares discussed, that being National Policy. The question at this juncture is that, if the event or practice is against our national interest, does it also rise to require action as a matter of National Policy? The answer to that question can be very complicated, because it represents both a governmental and a political question. The answer to that question determines the execution of the last principle--National Action--by which we move forward with a decision, based on purpose, interest, and policy, to react with some form of social, military, or mixed approach response. This kind of planning and analysis has long been the basis for military actions, especially, over a number of generations, and presidencies on both sides of the political spectrum.

Taking these principles to present day issues, such as that in Syria, where chemical weapons have been used against the population, we believe by the Assad regime, it seems that these long-held principles have no place in determining foriegn policy in the current administration. As has been reported widely by the media, Barack Obama first established a so-called 'red line', which, if crossed by the Assad Regime, where chemical weapons had been used, it would result in actions by the US and its allies to stop their further use.

The 'red line' was crossed months ago. Evidence is clear they had been used at least twice, and so far the US response has been simply to deny facts, and then move the line. Now, with nearly 2,000 killed and sickened in the latest attack, it has become too public to ignore, and too late to effectively create a meaningful response. The British did what we used to do routinely. They analyzed Purpose, Interest, Policy, and Action, brought the issue to the British Parliament, and decided this was not a pressing issue for them to commit their forces.

Obama had that opportunity months ago. Unfortunately, he has spent so much time using the Congress--which alone has the right to declare war under our constitution--and bombing Syria would be an act of war however he describes it--that effective consultation now would probably be fruitless. Instead, he held a press conference, saying he would refer it finally to the Congress, and immediately stated that he would act anyway, even in the Congress voted not to intervene.

From a National Interest and National Action perspective, one has to ask the very pertinent question--Why is it important for us, the United States---to be intervenor in these affairs, when the other countires of Europe and the Middle East want no part of intervention themselves?

Much of the rhetoric we are seeing now is due to the indecisiveness of the Obama. He claims to be a peacemaker, and the one who got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That is partially true. The Bush administration had already set dates for withdrawal from Iraq, and had started the surge in Afghanistan as a means of pushing for some kind of victory before draw down there. The concept of ending the wars was not new to the Obama Administration.

This situation is not like withdrawal. it is much harder to decide to intervene than to withdraw. Moreover, this president is not like JFK, LBJ, or Bush 41, all of whom faced similar decisions and made them without long-term waffling. We may not agree with results in all cases, but the Nation was seen as strong, decisive, and protecting of our National Interests.

We don't see that here. What we see is a president, coming toward the end of his final term in office, who has built a reputation as a political bully in Washington, acting a lot like a socialist dictator, while trying to force a legacy that will somehow show his constant indecisiveness as strength in the face of obstinate opposition. What he fails to realize is that he does not determine his legacy--the people, the historians, and the rest of the world will determine the legacy of Barack Obama, and, frankly, that legacy does not look bright, at least from this vantage point.

There is a more important issue, however, and one that bears all of our attention. Indecisiveness, while is does not directly affect National Purpose, or even National Interest, both of which can remain relatively intact without firm decisions, it does affect both National Policy and National Action. When we are seen, as a nation, as indecisive, they other nations cease to regard our national policies as worthy of their attention. Witness the british Parliament versus the Prime Minister, or the UN, or the Arab League. In addition, indecisiveness leads to mistakes in military action, as we put our warriors on alert, and then stand-down like a yo-yo, they soon lose their critical military edge. We also lose considerab le face, as we are seen to be backing down to ther major powers, like China and Russia, and seemingly afraid of facing even an incompetent force, like the Syrian Army. Indecisiveness breeds contempt.

By the time action in Syria occurs, if it ever does, the weapons will be moved, the military will be repositioned, and the artillery gone into hiding. Even the most incompetent of administrations can do that. Obama will be left, as he seems to usually be, giving a strongly worded reproof to Assad, who will return an obscene gesture and continue to kill his own people. That's politics at its best, and Obama seems to be the best at politics and not governance.

Part 2 - The Benghazi Attack by Militants, and the Death of the US Ambassador to Libya

The attack on the 'diplomatic activity' or 'diplomatic facility', depending on who you read in the press, was a major disaster for the United States Government. The ambassador, Chris Stevens, was killed, along with several other members of his staff, and protectors. That alone is a significant embarassment for the administration, simply because no US Ambassador had been killed on a duty station for a number of years. What followed, however, both in the Government, and in the media, was an even greater disaster, and vastly expanded the importance of the event, in the minds of the Congress, and a large percentage of the American people. The timeline, and the date the event happened, on September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 bombings in new York and Washington, reopened old wounds for a lot of people, and happened in the waning days of a presidential election campaign.

At first, the administration tied the Attack on the 'diplomatic facility' to similar events going on in Cairo, over a short film, created by an Arab in the US, which defamed Muhammad, something you simply don't do in the current activist Islamic world, without expecting repercussions. if the film had been the actual cause of the attack in Benghazi, then the evolving story would have, in my mind, been quite different in its outcome. But the film was not the cause of the attack, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for one, knew it almost immediately, as did the Embassy staff in Tripoli, and other intelligence agencies. These agencies did not yet know which particular group was responsible; but the filming of the attack, and its wide distribution almost in real time, certainly should have shown that this was no mirror demonstration for what was occurring in cairo, and elsewhere, over the film.In addition, the film in question, "Innocence of Muslims", had not really been distributed by its creator; relying instead on a trailer, a brief advertisement, published on YouTube, a popular video sharing site. other than one private showing, there is no evidence the film was ever shown to general public in a theatre, much less widely distributed, except after the fact, when the media started asking about it. Nonetheless, the administration grasped this trailer on YouTube as its reasoning for the attack in Benghazi, and started spinning the story on the networks, using Susan Rice, the UN Ambassador, as its messenger. She appeared on the major Sunday network news shows, and spinned a tale of reaction to the trailer, even though, by then, the administration was well aware that something else had happened in Benghazi. Later, the administration defended her appearances, saying through Jay Carney, the White house Spokesman, that she simply said what the intelligence community told her to say. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, later reiterated that story during her congressional appearances, all after the election was concluded. Clinton somehow concocted major illness to prevent her earlier appearance before the House and Senate committees.

OK, so we have heard the story on virtually every network about Benghazi. The real question is does the administration's response, and particularly that of the President himself, rise to a question of impeachment? Just as important, does the situation, as it evolved over reporting on Benghazi rise to the level of scandal, or is it simply what may be a gross mismanagement of a sad, and horrible, event.There are several parts to those answers, and they revolve, in turn, about several other questions, which have, to date, not received very adequate answers.

Question #1 - Where was the President, what was he doing, and how did he lead the effort to protect our diplomats in Benghazi?

Question #2 - Why did the administration, knowing what was occurring shortly after the attack started, not denounce it, send aid, and, clearly indicate what was happening?

Question #3 - Why not bring the Congress, and the committees into the loop, make this a clear case of terrorism, and fashion a response equal to the crime, with bipartisan American support?

The answers to these questions are needed to see the extend of what some have called a coverup, and others have called 'high crimes and misdemeaners'.

Starting with Question #1, Several reports, from Jay Carney, the press spokesman, Leon Pannetta, then Secretary of Defense, and others, are very circumspect on the actual location of the president the evening of the attack. Carney, in one of his press briefings, noted that the 'President was kept fully informed', but did not indicate an actual location, even though asked several times. Pannetta indicated in his statement that he notified the President 'early in the attack', but then did not speak to him again until the next morning. These reports are in stark contrast to the efforts made by the White House, during the killing of Bin-Laden to show a president 'In-Charge', and in the White House situation room, surrounded by key aides.

Now, in deference to the President, he is surrounded by aides and senior associates who are quite capable of taking decisive action, while keeping the President 'in the loop'. That may have happened here; the President himself has not spoken directly to the issue, leading others to make assumptions about his involvement, or lack of it, during the events which occurred. Conversely, situations such as occurred in Benghazi, are ripe opportunities for a President to show his leadership, wisdom, and willpower. Politically, in a major election campaign, and given Obama's previous record on getting into the media as often as possible, it seems amazing that, in the situation, he is clearly a silent partner to the events. At least, it appears so from the reports thus far. However, is the lack of public statements by the President a cause for censure, or even impeachment? No, it is not, at least for impeachment. However, situations such as this can easily cause a dramatic shift in the willingness of the media to give passes in the future for similar actions. The President should have been out in front of his team, condemning the attacks, SENDING WHATEVER ASSISTANCE HE COULD MUSTER, demanding the Libyans do the same. As it turned out, there were special forces available, although in small numbers, who could have been placed in harms way quickly. That is their training, and whoever the Commander was in the AFRICOM chain that denied approval for them to even try should be retired--and quickly.

Question #2 is an outgrowth of the first question. This question goes more deeply to efforts of the administration to explain the attack, then try to move beyond it to other issues. in this case, as in the case of the leadership role of the President, it appears the White house cxame up remaredly short. The answer to the question, however, is much more complex. Historically, and attack on US facilities, home or abroad, is an issue dealt with directly by the White House, and that generally has meant involving the President in the decision-making process. It is nearly impossible to believe the president, absent some other major crisis at the time, would not be the prime leader of the analysis of the event, and the US response. Is it imaginable that harry Truman would have left the A-bomb decision to the Secretary of War? Perhaps John kennedy could have left the decision to blockage Cuba to others, or Lyndon Johnson could simply have told the Secretary of Defense to do what he wished following the Turner Joy incident, which propelled us into Vietnam. Using that logic, Bush 41, and Bill Clinton could have kept a lower profile during the earlier terrorist strikes in Khobar Towers, the events in Somalia, or a host of other events which cost American lives. Bush 43 might have invoked 'plausible deniability' and let the Joint Chiefs decide to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's not the way we do business. We elect a President to become the ACTIVE LEADER of the Republic, and make the hard decisions for which he was elected. The American people have not, historically, accepted the view that 'others' are responsible for what are normally presidential decisions. If that is the case, and i believe it is, then how do we assess the role of the President in the Benghazi attack, and the subsequent changes to the 'public story'? Even more important, why did he not act 'Presidential', instead leaving to his subordinates the public role in the responses over the days following the attack, and after the ambassador had died with his men in Benghazi? Looking at the situation as fairly as possible, the President did identify the attack early as a 'terrorist' attack. One would assume he based that statement, either on his own heart, or on information provided by the CIA, however it was transmitted to him. It did not matter at that point if the individual group could be identified, but it did matter that it be identified as something more than an informal, but violent, response to a film, most people knew little about.

Moreover, it appears from the message traffic released, and discussed by Carney at several press conferences, that the early official response was to condemn and arrest the film-maker, and get the film off the Internet, since it had offended the Muslim world. Between the State Department, which had quickly started the process of coming out with a unified 'version' of the events, and the CIA, which had differing opinions of the cause and effect of the attack, a statement was prepared and 'someone' decided it would be Ambassador Susan Rice who would deliver that message to the public, through the major Sunday morning news opinion programs. Regrettably, what was given Rice to deliver what dead wrong, and at least part of the administration knew it at the time she delivered her version of the story.

Carney, at the White House, was quick to tell reporters that the White House had no part in gthe statement, other than to change one word in the statement, and that the intelligence community had taken the lead in providing information to Ambassador Rice. The real questions remaining unanswered to this day, are who finally approved the statement; did the President approve of it; and why did she take information 'from the intelligence community' for her presentation, without vetting it herself with the State Department (her boss, officially) and the local Foreign service personnel on the scene? It would be incredible, given the events occuring, that the White house was not directing foreign policy in this instance, but rather reacting to it, at best, or keeping isolated from it, at worst. Either alternative does not speak well for the leadership of the nation. Again, of course, the question here is if this lack of leadership rises to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeaners', or something else. I will argue, for the sake of argument, that failure to lead is stupidity, but not necessarily an impeachable offense.

In terms of Question #3, the lack of leadership at the White house did not extend to the media, in my view. The major media organizations simply took what carney had said, and published it as facts, without any effort to determine, even from European and other Middle Eastern sources, whether what was said in the press briefings was accurate. Throughout the days that followed, and through the election itself, the media generally lambasted the Republican candidates for making this a 'political issue', while it was much more than a political issue -- it was a leadership issue, and one that should have shown a significant flaw in the Administration, and particularly the President. The administration spent the greater part of the campaign trying to smear the opposition, deny that al-Qaeda was still strong, and that the US was still very much at risk from organized terrorism. Conversely, the Republicans never were able to adequately define their concerns, nor were they able to elicit the truth from the White House. Both sides have a great deal of blame in making the attack, and its aftermath, a national disgrace; the White house by denying its importance, and the Republicans by failing to focus on the very real lack of leadership an response by the Administration.

So, what do we have here, in this, the first of the important 'scandals' of the Obama Administration? We have, I believe, lack of effective leadership, disdain for the oppostiin party, and a disdain for getting the truth to the American public. Are these impeachable offenses? By themselves, probably not. Only time will tell, however, if this attack, and it events, will tip the scales together with other events toward a decision to impeach.

New volume on terrorism, and one on Internet e-mail scams to be published in 2013

Two new volumes, one on terrorism, and one on Internet e-mail scams, are scheduled for publication in 2013.

Twilight in Waterside, another of Tieso's volumes on terrorism, is a change from previous scripts in his widening library of books. This volume speaks to the worldwide drug trade, being supported by the same terrorist-led organizations he has previouslt described, but this time with a twist. These terrorists want to bring a new, more powerfrul narcotic drug into Norfolk, home of the US Atlantic Fleet, and they want the help of the East Coast Mob in doing it.

"This volme speaks to the more common efforts of the Interagency Terrorism Task Forces, led by the FBI, and supported by a wide range of other Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. People need to know that not every terrorist wears a scarf and flowing robes; far more common are those in business suits and homburg hats. We show that in a very vivid way in this book," said Tieso, in his press release.

Twilight in Waterside should be out in late June, early July, 2013, and available from Amazon, and other major booksellers. A Kindle edition is also planned later in the fall.

Another one of Tieso's long time passions has been collecting copies of the various Internet e-mail scam messages; those from the original Nigieran '419' -type scams, and many of the newer ones, which all have a common purpose -- to separate people from their money, their identity, and their personal information.

This book, Internet Fraud: The Stupidity of Some; the Intelligence of Others in the Modern World, covers the world in showing the various types of frauds that show up in the Internet, and especially over e-mail messaging. Each of the messages reproduced in the book was received by Tieso, who has collected much useful information on how to avoid getting burned by the scam artists.

The book is not intended to be all-inclusive; other websites, and authors have tried to do that. What Tieso does is give the reader as sense of what the messages are like, and how to avoid getting stung by them. This volume will be out in early May, 2013, and available as well, over Amazon.com, in both both print and Kindle editions.

Others of Tieso's book, also available, include, Bernie Minihan's Dilemma, For the Sake of Terror, and Night Chill, all on international terrorism, and Avoiding Fale Mirrors, a widely acclaimed business management text. All are available on Amazon.com, in print and Kindle versions, and available as well through major booksellers.

True peace in the Middle East seems as elusive today as it has been for many years, even with the changes in regime going on around Northern Africa and Sinai.

Egypt has a new president, but can he really rule? Will the generals give up enough power that the 'democracy' there becomes more than a sham? it is possible, it will take a great deal of finesse on the part of Mohammed Morsi to convince the generals to actually let him run the country. He has officially renounced his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, but those resignations seldom are meaningful. He has also both questioned and said he will support the previous treaty with Israel, while call them vultures for their treatment of the Palestinians. Only time will tell, but this 'change' has all the earmarks of an emerging, new Islamic law-based state.

Syria is still in the midst of a semi-civil war, and it shows no signs of abating, and no signs of any real assistance by the Western nations, who are effectively being prevented by Russia and China from intervening. In the meanwhile, Iran is supporting the Syrian government of Assad with weapons and 'volunteers', as they massacre section after section of towns in the area. The latest effort, the downing of a Turkish jet fighter, is causing significant alarm across that border, and involving NATO.

Iran continues to resist nuclear facility inspection, calling for meeting after meeting, and dragging most of the European and US Community with it as it delays while it builds its first bomb. Again, China and Russia support their efforts, and wield veto power in the UN to prevent more significant sanctions than those already in place.

Jordan continues to remain under the horizon, while continuing to serve as the largest focal point of Palestinian people who want to return to their ancestral homes. If the border security provided by Egypt across the Sinai is dropped, look for many of the Palestinians in Jordan to try to return to their prior homes, a move that will be almost certainly be resisted by Israel.

Lebanon remains a powder keg as well. Hizbollah has been quiet lately, but is supported by Syria, and simply, in my view, waiting for its moment to move across the border to Israel.

Then there is Israel.They just can't seem to make peace with the Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter. The country whose constitution provides for immigration for mistreated and abused people, is in the midst of expelling Africans who fit that description, but are somehow 'unacceptable' to some Israelis, who consider them inferior, and who would dilute the majority of Jews in Israel. Israeli relations with Turkey, its former key ally in the region, is going from bad to even worse, and Israeli Knesset debates on Armenian massacres early in the 20th century don't help any more than a debate on the Israeli massacre of innocents in Gaza. All it does is inflame sentiment.

The US, in all this mess, still seems to feel that it can be an honest broker for peace, which is, of course, ridiculous. Multiple US administrations have supported Israel in any situation, right or wrong, and there seems to be no change in that sentiment, particularly in an election year., and also with PLO President Abbas, with whom he visited Bethlehem yesterday. Putin provided encouraging statments of support for the Palestinian Authority and its need for a State of Palestine, while also cautioning Israel against taking unilateral actions, such as increased settelements, that may deter negitiations for a permanent peace. The real questions is how this is perceived in the region, especially since the US is firmly allied with israel. Only time wil ltell what influence Russia has in future negotiations.

Russia is cthe newest entrant into diplomatic approaches in the region. Russian president Putin is currently visitng the area, has met with Prime Minister Netanyahu

What we continue to have in the Middle East is stalemate -- stalemate that can go nowhere until multiple parties decide to make significant change within their own countries, and then across the region.

Fifth anniversary of Hamas takeover of Gaza is approaching. The fifth anniversary of Hamas rule in Gaza is approaching with apparently mixed results. The Associated press released an article by Ibrahim Barzak and Karin Laub which discusses the plusses and minuses of Hamas' rule, and the feeling of the residents of the Gaza Strip.

"The Islamists of Palestine were once respected as a supposedly honest alternative to corrupt secular rivals, the Western-backed Fatah group led by the late Yasser Arafat. But that luster has mostly been lost as miserable Gaza becomes even poorer and more aid-dependent. The corruption of the Fatah days is perceived to have persisted into Hamas' rule, as Audis, Porsches and Hummers are driven around potholed streets by a newly wealthy class of black market traders who benefit from the regime," said Barzak & Laub.

On the streets of Gaza, bitterness seems prevalent.

"I am not saying Fatah was better, but when I voted for Hamas I voted for change," said Fahmi Khamis, 42, a vendor who sells made-in-China household goods in Gaza City's outdoor market. "This did not happen. Instead, we lost a lot."

Meanwhile, there are also reports that Israel plans to demolish the Palestinian village of Susiya, which it calls an illegal settlement, even though the people havelived there for decades in relative peace, although poor. Israel wants these people out of what they call "Area C", which has been extensively populated by Israeli settlers over the past few years, and would be part of israel in any eventual settlement, according to a report from CBS News.

There is international concern about the razing of this and other villages.

As CBS reports, "Critics say Israel has blocked virtually all Palestinian development in Area C, while expanding the Jewish settlements there. Only 5 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in Area C have been granted in recent years, said Alon Cohen-Lifshitz of the Israeli group Bimkom, which calls for fair planning practices."

"Planning restrictions and demolition orders are part of a wider Israeli land grab, said Michael Sfard, an attorney for Israeli activists who have installed solar panels and wind turbines with German funding in 18 small communities in the southern West Bank."

"The federal government (Germany) and its EU partners are watching the situation ... very carefully," said a German Foreign Ministry spokesman Wednesday, on customary condition of anonymity. "They are calling for safeguarding the German and international projects ... and are in close contact with the Israeli authorities."

"Israel's Civil Administration, the branch of the military dealing with Palestinians in Area C, said it is working on more than a dozen master plans in the southern West Bank to regularize what it considers Palestinian squatters. Maj. Guy Inbar, an Israeli spokesman, said some of the work is being held up because Palestinians are not cooperating. He said some of the Palestinians in the southern West Bank would be asked to move as part of such plans, but he declined to give details."

Qamar Assad, an attorney for Susiya, said the villagers have not been offered an alternate site.

Former Israeli Soldier trying to become a Palestinian. Finally, Fox News is reporting an interesting story. it seems that a former member of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is trying to renounce his Israeli citizenship to become a Palestinian citizen.

As Fox reports, "In an odd twist to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian saga, a former Israeli soldier has embarked on a new fight: He wants to renounce his Israeli citizenship and move to a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank."

"Andre Pshenichnikov, a 23-year-old Jewish immigrant from Tajikistan, was recently detained by Israeli police for residing illegally in the Deheishe Refugee Camp near Bethlehem. There he told police that he wants to break all ties with Israel, give up his Israeli citizenship and obtain a Palestinian one instead. Pshenichnikov is currently traveling in Europe for two months. When he returns, he hopes to move to the West Bank."

I put some comments on the Beast Blog today. Like the WashingtonPost, they had 'technical problems' so i am putting the same here.

Read.

Like so many others, you split hairs to defend an undefensible position. Yes, the Israelis and the Palestinians are both Semites--historically and factually. They disagree on large numbers of issues, among them basic freedoms and rights they have to land that they have held for centuries--long before the migration of the first Jews to Palestine early in the 20th century. It is true that the UN gave what had been Palestine to the Jews--with the provision that a Palestinian State--never created--would also be formed. Instead, large numbers were expelled into Jordan and Egypt and remain expatriots not able to take back the land they legitimately own. Netanyahu insists that Israel is for Israelis. What about the Palestinian israelis that tilled the land long before. Have they no rights? Should not the UN be able to send in their human rights inspectors to assure that what Israel claims is true.

The Associated Press reported today that the deputy head of Iran’s armed forces said that Tehran is ready to take pre-emptive action against its foes if it feels that it is in danger.

“We do not wait for enemies to take action against us,” Gen. Mohammed Hejazi, who heads the military’s logistical wing, was quoted by the semiofficial Fars news agency as saying. “We will use all our means to protect our national interests.”

Iran said the day before that it was starting air defense war games to practice protecting nuclear and other sensitive sites, the latest in a series of military maneuvers viewed as a message to the West that Iran is prepared both to defend itself against an armed strike and to retaliate.

The official news agency IRNA said the four-day air defense war games, dubbed “Sarallah,” or “God’s Revenge,” were taking place in the south of the country and involve anti-aircraft batteries, radar, and warplanes. The drill will be held over 73,000 square miles (190,000 square kilometers) near the port of Bushehr, the site of Iran’s lone nuclear power plant.

Iran has held multiple air, land, and sea maneuvers in recent months as the tensions increase, according to the AP article.

If iran has only 'peaceful' nuclear intentions, why the saber-rattling, why the naval forces to Syria, and why the Britain-France Embargo? Only time will really tell what is happening here.

One of the latest analyses of the iran-Israel controversy was printed in the New York Times today in its world news report. Several significant statements are here about the intent of the nuclear program, its potential effect on israel, and the overall effect of US and other sanctions. read the article here.

Multiple media outlets have been reporting on iran's apparent willingness to talk about it nuclear program over the last 24 hours. it seems, in their view, that the sanctions are working.

Don't be fooled by the by the wanderings of Ahmadinijad and his crazy set of ayatollahs. They have offered before to so the same thing and then find a way to slap the face of the US and . Their latest set of bombings (One incident that occurred by someone with an Iranian passport) show that they are still the exporters of terrorism. if they are afraid, it is not of the US, but of Israel, which is clearly preparing for a major strike over the next couple of months.

Israel has iran dangling, and deservedly so. It is simply amazing to me that Iran has no fear of the major superpowers, but is clearly afraid that Israel, with nothing to lose, and a superpower providing the weapons, will conduct a devastating set of strikes on Iran. They (Israel) have the will, the guts, and the emerging requirement to do what their allies should have done a long time ago but lack the gumtion to complete

You all remember the "Underwear Bomber", the guy from Nigeria that decided he would blow up a flight on its way to Detroit in 2009 but failed miserably and wascaught literally with his hand in his pants?

Sentencing was today and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab sat quietly as the sentence was read. The mandatory punishment was never in doubt after he surprised the courtroom and pleaded guilty to all charges on the second day of trial last October. At that time, Abdulmutallab said the bomb in his underwear was a "blessed weapon" he could use to avenge poorly treated Muslims around the world. It failed to detonate when he reached in side his pants aboard an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight but did cause a brief fire that badly burned his groin. Passengers pounced on Abdulmutallab and forced him to the front of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 where he was held until the plane landed minutes later.

As reported by Fox News, "Abdulmutallab, 25, talked freely to the FBI about his desire to commit martyrdom for his Islamic faith. In 2009, months before the attack, he traveled to Yemen in a desperate bid to see Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric and one of the best-known Al Qaeda figures, according to the government. He told investigators that his mission was approved after a three-day visit with his mentor. Al-Awlaki and the bomb maker were killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen last year, just days before Abdulmutallab's trial. At the time, President Barack Obama publicly blamed al-Awlaki for the terrorism plot."

"Abdulmutallab is an "unrepentant would-be mass murderer who views his crimes as divinely inspired and blessed, and who views himself as under a continuing obligation to carry out such crimes," prosecutors said in a court filing last week." His lawyer argues that no harm was done, except perhaps to his client's groin, in arguing for a lesser sentence.

By the way, this terrorist is the principal reason that the full-body scanners we have come to know and love/hate are in place since his groin bomb completely avoided detection in Amsterdam as he started his journey.

To say that the Mideast is a tinderbox is perhaps a misnomer. Rather, it appears the fuses are already lit and, as usual, the US will be in the middle, primarily due to the ineptitude and stupidity of the Obama Administration.

The most important problem is, in my view, not Israel-Iran, as many think, but a more basis conflict--the production and delivery of oil. We still have major conflicts ongoing in Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, and Libya--all contributing to the ever-fluctuating prices of oil at the barrel-head. Until these regional flareups settle down, especially those in Egypt and Libya, there cannot be any stabilization of oil prices.

Much of this instability is tied to the greed, not of the producers, but from the refiners and distributors. if one looks honestly at the oil market, it does not take a genius to realize that prices above those set by OPEC and others are set by the same distributors that bought the early through futures purchases months or even years earlier. let's say for a moment that their price at the pipe was $60.00 a barrel for delivery in twelve months. The market immediately takes over and the price rises because of 'market turmoil' to the extent that--a year later--that $60 oil is now $90 oil just as it is now out of the pipe today--a great profit for the distributors. Take instability in Egypt, Libya, or even Greece and the price goes even higher long before the delivery and payment for the oil futures is required.

Add to that instability a number of conflicts, such as that in Bahrain, which affects the Saudi oil market, and even more instability occurs in both pricing and availability.

There are also a number of sources that point to the US - a major oil importer -- as one of the real problems in this set of equations. US refiners have large supplies of oil, much of it heavier oil, although lighter oil for gasoline is also stored, and they are carefully limiting their refining and distribution processes to drive up the prices even further. That doesn't help anyone, except the refiners that generally support the Obama administration with contributions.

Bottom line --oil is a major factor in the larger equation of Mideast peace.

Israel as a variable

The majority of the Mideast countries, despite their public statements, do not like Israel in their midst. Nor do they like the attitude of the current Israeli administation that continues to try to beat down both Hamas and the Fatah. In turn, Israel, relying on the US and its UN Security Council majority, could care less about true peace, relying on enforced cease fires with occasional invasions by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) Whenever they choose.

The argument, however, is not about Israel asa country. it is about Israel as a religious entity--one that is anathema to Islam regardless of the individual sect. It must be remembered that, while the Jews have a long history in Palestine, they were absent for many centuries, and other semitic peoples lived on the land that Israel now claims through UN Mandate. Even that mandate was never completely executed and the only people left out were the original Palestinians, who were thrown from their land, given no rights, and displaced even further as European Jews filled the land spaces.

That having been siad, Israel is a recognized country and its citizens have a right to live in peace as well. Unfortunately, neither side really gives way to the other; Israel is the strongest country in the area; its Government is strong and its military powerful; and its people dedicated to peace but prepared for war if needed to retain their space.

Faced on all sides by countries and governments that really do not support them, Israel has a continuing problem of preparation for conflict. Egypt started to close the underground portals to Gaza, but, with the "Arab Spring" has generally stopped that effort, and even opened the above-ground entry points between Egypt and Gaza to convoy trade. Lebanon continues to harass the Israeli border guards and troops, and missiles still fire occasionally from Gaza and the West Bank. Syria is decidedly not a friend of israel but, luckily, is engaged in its own burgeoning civil war.

Importantly, the Israeli people are tired of war and are gradually splitting into both peace-preferred and war-mongering factions. The war faction sees Iran as its greatest threat and it looking for ways to justify its attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. That might be a good idea, but Israel will have only one shot at that country, and the real question is whether they have the capability to pull off a complete destruction of those facilitate, the Iranian air defense system, and enough of the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian Air Force to make their raid a success. The US is already deeply involved in supporting that effort when it comes. We will provide even larger 'bunker buster' bombs, refueling facilities, and everything else they need. We (the US) will also be prepared to condemn their actions should the world not agree--that's the general response from the Obama Administration thus far).

The Israeli peace faction is turning quickly to Palestinian rights and, again, justifiably so. Were the israeli Government to stop the indiscriminate settlement building, and provide rights to the Palestinians that peacefully worked the land for centuries, they might just find an ally for even more peace initiatives. The full terms of peace among the Jews and Muslims will probably never be achieved after the two Intifadas, but it is worth the effort.

That attempt at pace means the US needs to become an honest broker and not just an Israeli ally. The US needs to get out of the daily complaints, and into a view that encourages both EQUALLY toward peace. Perhaps that means stopping much of the $50B in aid that goes out to Israel, or at least predicating the military support aid on real progress toward peace. Support to Israel on Iran is a different issue. Working out peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel through direct negotiations changes the equation, and removes the influence of iran on the issue.

Whatever we decide to do, and whatever Israel decides to do, it needs to happen before the Israelis attempt to destroy Iran. Peace will not come from an incomplete effort.

Iran seems determined to walk a fine line between simple stupidity and outright idiocy in its current face-off with the US Navy in the Straits of Hormuz. The last time they decided to close the straits by mining it, which resulted in an explosion aboard a US warship, they lost several craft in the return strikes. This time, with their new surface-to-surface missiles, also recently tested, they a giant again, but one with much more advanced firepower.

Iran is backed by China and Russia in their latest silliness, and has already indicated that, in the event of further UN/US sanctions (That is what this is really all about) they will close the straits and prevent oil export. The Straits provide an avenue for export of a significant portion of exports from Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other producers. So, the Iranis believe they have a wild card and have chosen to insult and belittle the US into some kind of confrontation since they have their allies solidly behind them.

But do they?

Russia, in particular, has proved over time to be a blusterous but unfaithful ally to the countries it has tried to stir up against the US and its allies. China wants Irani oil, but will only go so far in supporting Iran. Both countries can veto UN Security Council actions, but do not have the power ro force the Security Council to stop independent actions by member states who choose to go around the UN. An effective stalemate for both countries.

Then there is the ultimate wild card in the area, Israel. it is clear from the dialogues over the past several months that Israel sees Iran as the biggest thorn in their side. The Israeli military would like nothing more than the green light to go in and take out the nuclear sites, and anything else of military value that supports Irani terrorism. So far, they have kept their looming potential below the horizon. That cannot last forever, and they will probably not ask for UN permission if they do decide to strike.

The US, in turn, is improving the arms capabilities of Saudi Arabia and Iraq so that they can defend themselves when needed, and especially if the Irani do decide to construct traffic in the Straits.

Since the Irani Military made it clear that they did not want the USS Stennis back in the straits the navy has announced that not only will the Stennis continue to patrol, but the Abraham Lincoln and another carrier group will join the patrols as well. That represents over 1500 aircraft, ships, and supporting vessels and infrastructure that strike Iran within minutes of any attack. If that eventuality occurs, a lot of people will be visiting with Allah. Let's all hope it doesn't come to that.

Time Magazine - Person of the Year 2011. As we barrel headlong into the rushing rapids that will inevitably be 2012, perhaps a few moments ought to be spent pondering where we are, what our nation is doing, and what directions we ought to pursue in the coming 2012.

First, it is interesting that Time magazine has announced its "Person of the Year" and named the protesters on Wall Street (and elsewhere in the Nation) as that honoree. Nothing could more succinctly express the general malaise of our society than that dedication. If these protesters were genuine, and not a bunch of professionals that go from cause to cause where their stipends come from, or where they might get free food and lodging aside from the streets, then they just might make a good point on the decadence of Wall Street and the broader banking community. However, just reading the signs, and listening to many of their 'spokesmen' on the airways, it is easy to tell that these people, in general, really don't know what they are protesting about, and, as usual, the range of topics goes far beyond the financial mess we are in right now.

Is Iran a sole threat or a conspiracy with others? An interesting question brought up over drinks the other day at my favorite pub in Crystal City. Some believe that Iran is a directed threat against primarily Israel, and that the US is simply exacerbating that threat by its support for Jewish State. Others believe that Iran is either working in concert with or bankrolling other states, such as Syria, in their efforts to undermine US efforts at peace in the area.

Personally, I believe neither is the straight truth. Iran is almost certainly bankrolling Syria, Hezbollah Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza, and probably a large wing of factions in Iraq that have popped up since the US withdrawal a short time ago. Both Iran and Syria have, I believe correctly, gauged the international sentiment for reducing conflict over creating more brawling with either country. Only Israel remains alone in realizing that these two countries are significant risks to its survival over time if not stopped in their tracks. The US is now virtually powerless to stop that eventuality. All the rhetoric at the UN and other venues; all the frozen assets, travel restrictions, and the Hillary Clinton speeches have done virtually nothing to stop their internal and external actions. As long as either or both have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, they remain both a threat, and a danger that must be respected--even more than the danger currently posed by the succession in North Korea.

Iran has the oil, the partners, the customers, and supporters to prevent real action against it in the long run--all except Israel. If Israel sees a significant or potential danger (beyond that already in place), it will strike first and ask for international permission later--and justifiably so. Iran has at least a limited ability to respond with nuclear weapons, rocket-based, but will it really do so? Can it afford to do so? Probably not, leaving some measure of hegemony between Israel and Iran that will serve as a deterrent. Either side can severely damage the other, and each side hassuppporters who would really prefer not to be deeply involved in that potential conflict. Only time will tell, but I will bet that Iran and Syria will ratchet up the stakes, and either or both will find themselves on the other side of a massive attack in the next six months.

The future of Iraq. With the US pullout, Iraq has quickly become a mess that will require future international attention. The Government wants to arrest its own Kurdish Vice President, bringing the Sunni-Kurd wound out afresh--but without the US to mediate. Terror squads are roaming the country at will bombing here and there as they choose--disrupting the Government, and showing the clearly that Iraq must either live with their decisions or face civil war. Expect a full-blown civil war within 3 months here.

Implications for the US economy. Much of what is discussed above is being steered by politics and the economy. The Obama Administration is so clearly showing itself as the single most incompetent admistration since Warren G Harding - Even Jimmy Carter did a better job, and both got the Nobel Prize for their lack of effort. Everything in the Obama White House from his first day in office has been directed toward re-election, and nothing, including war and diplomacy will stand in the way of that effort. The economy is still in a shambles, unemployment remains too high, the banks continue to use Federal funds, supported by the Federal Reserve and Treasury, as they gouge customers, and Obama goes off to Hawaii as he has done something to merit a vacation. He has inflamed Israel--not even realizing that every step he takes pisses them off even more as he claims to support them while crticizing at every opportunity.

Don't get me wrong here - unlike the jaded media who think a trip to Israel is mandatory and kissing Netanyahu's ass at every chance is obligatory, I disagree. The US should be pursuing a policy as an honest broker in the Middle East, but now it is too late to get any government in the area to believe that story. Even Hillary Clinton can't make that bitter pill go done anyone's throat. In fact, it seems that Bill Clinton actually has more influence currently on the world stage that the President. Something is amiss here for that to be happening. Many overseas are actually hoping for a new Clinton Era. Wonder how Hillary would work that out?

In any event, there are so many balls in the air for the US right now that something will be coming crashing down--bet it will be the economy again, since there will be less of a war to draw from the economy. only time will tell, but you can be sureit will not be the Obama administration that will tell you.

So many significant events ha ve been happening since I last wrote. mostly, I have been busy working on a new book that should come out early in the year. Have also been re-editing my first book, Bernie Minihan's DIlemma, and a new version of that volume should reach the public about March 1st. Hope you will all respond to those new issues as you have in the past.

Well, let's see what is going on in the Middle East and Mediterranean area

The biggest news is probably the death of Mohamar Quaddafi in Libya (Have anybody ever figured out the real spelling of his name?). It came after a long series of battles across the desert, ending, for all practical purposes in Sirte as he was captured, beaten, and then carted away to an ambulance where a mysterious bullet ended up in his skull. One son and his Chief of Staff were also among the dead hauled out of a series of culvert pipers where they had been hiding after a strafing run from a NATO drone. Good riddance to Uncle Mohamar, but one has to wonder who the new strongman will be as the Transitional Council gets down to the real work of governing. Only time will tell, but Hillary Clinton is there to help them sort it all out.

There is Egypt, of course, which first threw out Mubbarak and then the generals simply started a new ruling council, promising elections that will either never come, or be limited to those candidates the generals want elected. Net plus up for the people - ZERO. great frevolt though.

Syria, who acts as if it doesn't care about the rest of cthe world continues to shoot and bomb its people to keep Assad in power, and, with the rest of the world simply looking on, seems to be winning at doing that. We, of course, issued a strong condemnation, but no real action.

Israel finally got back Sgt Shalit from Hamas. They in turn got a promise of 1,000 arabs being held in Israeli jails (They must have large jails with still another 4,000+ remaining in their jails). Several of the more prominent arab bombers were on the itial freedom list of over 400, with the rest to be released in stages. Wonder how long it will take Israel to find a pretext for not returning the rest, and, conversely, for Hamas to take another prisoner? Will israel now loosen its stranglehold on Gaza (as it promised months ago for the release of the soldier) or will it continue with its blockade and international piracy that continues to starve and kill Gazans? Again, only time will tell.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority went to the UN seeking membership and creation of a Palestinian homeland. In this situation the facts really get perverse. The US has threatened a veto in the Security Council on full membership. The Israeli prime Minister, Netanyahu was quoted as saying negotiations were the answer to Palestinian statehood and not the UN. How quickly we forget that in 1946-7, when the Palestinians still held on to their land, Israelis asked for membership and a homeland, and the UN , led by the US ripped a space our of Palestine and called it Israel. The US and most of Europe that were decidedly anti-semitic at the time, embarassed by the Holocaust, and not wanting back their jewish emigres, could not wait to create the state. The Palestinians, many of them farmers on the land for generations were simply kicked out with no compensation. Now they want their mand back, and have at least a chance at doing so. The stupidity of politics at its best. Sort of reminds you of the plight of the American Indians doesn't it?

Virtually the entire Middle East is up in arms to some degree, but US policy seems to be in shambles. When the first outbreak of violence and oppostion occured in Tunisia, we started out by defending the regime and quickly switched to the insurgents as it became obvious that the Tunisian Government would fall. The same occured in Egypt, as we tried valiantly to support Mubarak until the vast crowds in the streets showed us a new light. Then we quickly froze Mubarak's assets and moved on. Hillary even visited with a scarf on her head in deference to the Islamic Fundamentalists.

The outcomes in those two countries seemed to be a new, and more democratic direction and Hillary Clinton could not wait to be part of new blooming democracies. In Tunisia, that view seems to be working, but in Egypt, that solution is far from certain. While a new, interim constitution is in place, the local villages are increasingly coming uner the control of the Imams, and Shariah Law is quickly forcing itself on the populations. That does not bode well for the US's desire for democracy.

In Yemen and Bahrain, the same scenario is playing out, as part of Yemen is now an "Islamin Emirate", whatever that is, and has created its own government. In Bahrain, home of the US Fifith Fleet, similar marches and riots are occuring, but the US has not publicly stated its view of that government, fearing, we would assume, for the safety of the deepwater port that houses the fleet. Political inconsistency makes us (the US) look like fools to the Arab world.

Nowhere, however, has there been more disorder in approach than in Libya. Here we started bombing Gadhafi's defense, convoys, and assaults, at least at first, and then allowed Gadhafi to move out against the rebels. Our excuse has been that we want to evaluate if al-Quada has infiltrated the rebel forces, mostly because there was a rumor that al_quada fighters had joined the opposition.. Of course they have! Get over it. We surrendered our primary position even before the French (How unusual) and now NATO has to do what we seemed not inclined to do in opposing Gadhafi. Instead, we ordered their embassy in the US closed. That really impacted on Gadhafi--he must be really afraid of us for that action.

The US diplomatic approach is in shambles, as Hillary CLinton goes from safe place to safe place to discuss the issues with other countries who also want to be in safe places. Meanwhile, the insurgents in these countries are doing what we don't have the guts to do--oppose tyranny and put their lives on the line to do so.

Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, has been not-so quietly offering proposals for him to take over from his father in exchange for peace in the country. You remember Seif, he indicated a few weeks back on international television that there would be a bloodbath in the cities if the rebels did not capitulate. Now he wants to be seen as a healer of his 'beloved country.' The rebels are not buying it, so don't expect a Gadhafi in power for too much longer.

There were explosions in the major Gadhafi compounds in Tripoli on the weekend, and it appeared to some media stationed there that either an aborted coup was moving or some action being taken to prevent more of the major players from deserting the Supreme leader. Who knows.

(In the rest of the Middle East...

Syria still has thousands marching in the streets each day. Bashar Assad has promised reforms and a new government, but the killing goes on. Soon, he will outreach his father's totals in killings.

Yemenhas apparently split into two countries--if you read the al-Quada press. an 'Islamic Emirate' has been formed from part of the country, while gassing of protesters and indiscriminate shooting still occurs daily in the streets. Now the Government has introduced a stronger version of tear gas that has, so far, injured over two hundred, and perhaps more. The US has now dropped any pretenses of supporting the Government.

In Oman,a group of terrorists took over an ammunition factory and blew themselves up--another result of good training which killed over 75 people outright. All in the cause of democracy.

Bahrain, meanwhile is still in the grip of their dictator/strongman who has banned the opposition and closed some newspapers. it does not seem to be stopping the people however, and one has to wonder what are the next steps here. The US carefully watching this nation, since the Fifth Fleet is based there in the harbor.

And in Israel..

Lots going on in that peace-loving nation. With the palestinians calling for the General Assembly to grant their their own nation, Israel is broadly hinting that it will simply annex the West Bank and other lands where vthere are mixed settlements, and the palestinians will get nothing--the rest of the world be damned. And, oh yes, we need more munitions, planes, and bombs from the US.

Netanyahu, the Israeli PM is now demanding the US abrogate the Goldstone report on the atrocities in Gaza since Lord Goldstone has revised his personal view of what happened. Not sure why Goldstone changed, but the numbers in the cemeteries have not, and the deaths are still attributable to Israel.

Iran is quiet, but still sending funding and fighters wherever it will help overturn governments and create fundamentalist regimes.

Pakistan releases the CIA Contractor US had declared a Diplomat to hide his actual status

CNN News reported that "CIA contractor Raymond Davis has been released from jail in Pakistan after the families of two men he killed in January forgave him, a government official said Wednesday. Punjab province law minister Rana Sanaullah first told Pakistani media that the victims' families did not want to press charges and added soon after that Davis was free to go. The statement came just hours after the American was charged with murder in connection with the shootings."

"The U.S. Embassy in Pakistan declined to answer repeated CNN questions about whether Davis had left jail or where he is now. According to Davis, the January 27 shooting occurred after two men attacked him as he drove through a busy Lahore neighborhood, the U.S. Embassy says."

The US State Department had argued for weeks that Davis was a diplomat--implying that he was a Federal employee and entitled to immunity.

The Situation in Bahrain remains grim at best

Meanwhile, Reuters reported that in Bahrain, "At least five people were killed and hundreds wounded when police cleared demonstrators from Manama's Pearl Square on Wednesday in an attempt to halt weeks of popular unrest. The violence, so soon after the Saudi-led intervention, will further embarrass Washington, which had urged dialogue to tackle Bahrain's problems and says Riyadh did not consult it before moving troops to the island where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based."

"That may be the case, but U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Bahrain at the weekend. To many Arabs the timing smacks of U.S. complicity in King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa's decision to invite the Saudis in and declare martial law."

"That will create a narrative that does not make the U.S. look good," said Shadi Hamid of the Doha Brookings Center. "It puts the U.S. on one side of the conflict, which is with the status quo and the Bahraini ruling family."

Non-Arab Iran, which has in the past laid claim to Bahrain, has denounced what it sees as U.S.-backed Gulf Arab meddling. "It is not possible to stop a popular uprising by using armed forces of other countries," said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "These are ugly and failing actions."

"The clampdown in Bahrain suggests that a conservative wing of the ruling family, backed by its Saudi counterparts, has won out over reformers led by Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who last month offered dialogue with the Shi'ite opposition and said protesters could stay in Pearl Square."

"A main demand of Bahrain's pro-democracy movement has been the resignation of conservative Prime Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, who has held his post for 40 years. Bahraini Shi'ites have long complained of discrimination in housing and jobs, charges the government rejects. The protesters had sought to cast their movement as national, not sectarian"

And in Libya...

Voice of America reports that "Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi attacked rebels in the western city of Misrata with heavy artillery Wednesday, killing at least four people. Witnesses say the rebel-held city has come under attack from the east and south. Government forces have also pounded the eastern city of Ajdabiya, but reports from rebels there say they have repelled pro-Gadhafi advances and are in almost total control of the city. The rebels disputed a Libyan state television report Tuesday that pro-government forces had regained control of Ajdabiya."

"The city is close to the opposition stronghold of Benghazi and would give access to roads leading to the opposition's base if retaken by pro-Gadhafi forces. The lightly armed and poorly organized opposition fighters have not been able to stop the advance of the Libyan army with its aircraft, tanks and heavy weapons. Over the past week, the previous rebel advance to the west has been pushed back nearly 200 kilometers."

Finally, the White House...

In the White House, it was business as usual, with president Obama urging people to stop filling out brackets for march Madness (The NCAA Tournament) to contribute to charities supporting Jpanaese re-construction efforts. No mention of Libya today.

It is coming up on a week after Rep. Peter King (R-NY), started his investigation on the radicalization of the American Muslim population with the first hearings that made him look completely foolish. At least Senator Joe McCarthy, in the early 50's, waved a few pieces of paper in the air which he claimed were lists of communists and their sympathizers. King could not even do that.

A New Gallup Poll indicates that 52 percent of Americans say these hearings are appropriate, though support is split along party lines. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans say the hearings are the right thing, while only 40 percent of Democrats say they are appropriate. Independents' views track closely to the national average at 51 percent supporting the hearings. Overall, 49 percent of Democrats polled on Tuesday say the hearings are not appropriate, compared to 42 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans. From that perspective, King has support for his views.

However, what King did not do--favoring a more general, sensationalist view--was to clearly define the purpose of his committee hearings. Those hearings should be on radicalization of Americans across a number of groups who preach hate and destruction--including those terrorist groups that happen to be Muslim. Instead he painted the Muslim community separately with a broad brush and that hurts everyone--not those he should have identified and exposed.

Rep. King has a long history of shooting off his mouth--starting hearings, or making claims, and eventually letting them peter out after he gets the publicity he seeks. That is what these hearing are really all aobut--publicity for mr. King. if he had the perspective, he could do good things with his hearings--but I will bet he won't, and the results of his efforts will be meaningless--except perhaps to get himself re-elected.

It is beginning to look like the US has no intention of doing much more than let Secretary Hillary shoot off her mouth but take no real concrete actions. We did more against Iraq, and are doing against the Mexican durg lords that we have done to provide concrete assistance to the Libyans opposed to Ghaddafi. This kind of stance (Common to Democrats) is even weaker than the tepid response of Clinton the adulterer while he was President and Iraq and Afghanistan first came across the horizon.

We are quickly looking like fools in the world space and it really needs to stop.

Mark Thompson of TIme Magazine, in the current issue of his blog, reports, "Many of war's most important combat elements -- like time and momentum -- don't show up in order-of-battle calculations. That's why the international dithering over launching a no-fly zone over Libya is now all but OBE -- overcome by events -- even as France and the Arab League call for one. The U.N. began discussing the topic in earnest on Monday, even as Muammar Gaddafi's warplanes continued to pound rebel positions.

Politico is reporting, "Hillary Clinton arrived in Paris on Monday, starting a week of efforts by the secretary of state to demonstrate U.S. support for pro-democracy forces in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.

While in Paris, Clinton is set to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and other European officials to discuss the instability in Libya as leader Muammar Qadhafi’s supporters regain some of their lost territory in the battle there. Sarkozy’s government was the first to recognize an anti-Qadhafi interim governing council as Libya’s legitimate government, a move the United States is considering.

Now, it is true that Obama has a lot on his plate right now, with the major budget battles looming (with a decidedly unfriendly House, and a mixed-bag Senate where even his own party often leaves him hanging), along with the situations in Libya and Japan, but then, that's what he gets the big bucks to do. he needs to make decisions that are not slippery and indecisive, but more focused on actual solutions and well-thought out actions.

Michael Falcone, on the ABC News Website, says today, "As the budget deal-making continues in Washington this week, the White House is facing growing pressure on a different front: how tough to get with Libya. Over the weekend, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to the Arab League’s endorsement of a no-fly zone over Libya without specifically addressing whether the Obama administration would support it."

“We welcome this important step by the Arab League, which strengthens the international pressure on Gadhafi and support Libyan people,” Carney said. “The international community is unified in sending a clear message that the violence in Libya must stop and that the Gadhafi regime must be held accountable.”

"But how far will the White House go and when? Libya is fast becoming a situation with profound political consequences here at home, as ABC’s Jonathan Karl noted on “This Week”: “If Gadhafi is still in power next year, if Libya is still a mess, this will be a central issue for Republicans. They will say this is Exhibit A of what happens when you have a foreign policy where America does not show leadership. You're already seeing it with some on the Hill saying, look, the French are leading on this. Where is America?” (More from yesterday’s “This Week” roundtable:"

The more we talk (The administration that is), and the less we do, the more Ghaddafi is reinforced, and the opposition will be crushed over time with that swcar on our collective backs. The US is already hated by most of the Middle East, and we are adding country after country as we practive 'diplomacy' in that area.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) has opened his hearings on what he perceives as growning Islamic Extremism in America. His initial witnesses, three democratic collegues and the representatives of the Committ on islamic-American Relations (CAIR). They quickly became reminiscent of the McCarthy hearings of the 1950's.

The New York Daily News, reporting on the opening testimory of Representative Ellis (D-Minn) reacted this way, " The only Muslim member of Congress shed tears as he ripped Long Island Rep. Pete King's controversial hearings into the radicalization of U.S. Muslims as un-American.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) was overcome with emotion Thursday as he invoked a heroic NYPD cadet who was smeared for his religion. Ellison recounted how cadet Mohammed Salman Hamdani, who died trying to rescue people after the Sept. 11 attacks, was accused of being in league with the terrorists because he was a Muslim who vanished on 9/11.

"After the tragedy, some people tried to smear his character" because of his religion, Ellison said of Hamdani, who was posthumously declared a hero. It was only when his remains were identified that these lies were exposed. He gave his life for other Americans."

Earlier, Ellison had called the hearings "unjust" for singling out an entire community for the evildoing of a few. He said King's hearings "will increase suspicion" about Muslim Americans, "making us all a little less safe." Ellison's unexpectedly emotional testimony silenced the hearing room, but King appeared to be unmoved by his wrenching words.

The Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee opened the hearings with a passionate defense. "Let me be clear today that I remain convinced that these hearings must go forward," he said. King has faced a surge of outrage from critics who say he's mounted a witch hunt against Muslims.

Richard Cohen, in an OpEd piece in the Washington Post, thought differently. "Unlike Moses Herzog, the eponymous character of the Saul Bellow novel "Herzog," I do not feverishly compose mad letters to public figures and sinister government agencies (the IRS, for instance). But I often yell back at the TV set. This happened Sunday when CNN's Candy Crowley asked Rep. Peter King what his hearings into Muslim radicalism are really about. "Good luck, Candy," I yelled, having asked the same question of King's staff just the day before. Here, I am sure, is the answer: The hearings are about Pete King." We could not agree more.

Roll Call, the Capital Hill Political rag, calls the hearings a "Witch Hunt", saying "Hearings on the radicalization of Muslim Americans set to begin today in the House have provoked a volatile national debate that is spilling into the election cycle. Threatening phone calls made this week to Rep. Peter King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, were the latest sign that tensions are high as the New York Republican spearheads a probe into the threat of domestic terrorism."

"Battle lines are already being drawn. On one side are Muslim advocacy and civil rights groups that call the investigation a targeted witch hunt and liken it to Joe McCarthy’s anti-communism hearings. On the other are national security and tea party activists who argue that the inquiry is a necessary first step toward protecting Americans."

"King told Roll Call that he initiated the probe to highlight what he says is a rising threat of radicalization in Muslim communities. The hearings could stretch out over the next year, prolonging the topic just long enough to make Islam a wedge issue in the presidential primaries. “We’re starting to see increased anti-Muslim rhetoric and bigotry that seems timed for the political season,” said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates. “The Republican Party is increasingly painting itself as the party of hate and divisiveness.”

"As candidates travel around the country testing the waters for presidential runs, the hearings could also revive last year’s polarized debate on a proposed Islamic center, which critics dubbed a mosque, near the site of ground zero in New York City. In the midterm elections, some conservative candidates used that issue to generate cash and attention for their campaigns."

These hearings will undoubetdly draw out, much as the mccarthy hearings did to try to rerail the Eisenhower Administration. However, in this case, it is so patently obvious that this is a circus that even an average person should take what is said with a grain of wild salt. We should not be painting an entire ethnic group for the sins of a few, or, at least, if he wants to do that the list should be expanded to others who are similarly committing senseless crimes and atrocities--many of which we shower with foriegn aid.

The trash continues over the forced resignation of Fred Grandy from the Grandy Group on WMAL, a Washington DC Talk Station. Atlas Shrugs, a well-known blog, in its latest front page, says,

"WMAL-AM in Washington, DC gave morning talk show host Fred Grandy an “offer he couldn’t accept” – don’t talk about Islam so much and leave your popular wife at home. The Friday discussions between Fred and “Mrs. Fred” about the Shariah threat to American freedoms and institutions were one of the most popular parts of the program."

"Grandy refused to meet those conditions and his show was cancelled. Now WMAL comes out with a different version of the incident everytime they get a call. The bottom line is this WMAL has become the first Shariah-compliant radio station in America. They speak about radical Islam very gingerly and they have no time for opinionated women like Mrs. Fred. Call them today and let them know you support the Constitution and not Shariah."

A number of writers have suggested that they support the station, and they have that right. Fred did 'resign', but only after an insult to his wife. How many have that much gumption these days?

Accuracy in Media asked some pointed questions on its blog as well. "Washington, D.C. radio station WMAL is once again being accused of firing a popular talk show host because of his criticism of radical Muslims. The station, a major source of news and information for the nation’s capital, claims that popular morning host Fred Grandy resigned on his own, but Grandy tells AIM that he was essentially forced to leave after his wife, who is also outspoken about radical Islam, was cut from the program."

"The growing controversy over Grandy’s departure has resulted in some Grandy supporters charging the station with being “Sharia-compliant,” a reference to Islamic law, and with bending under pressure from the Council on American Islamic-Relations (CAIR), a Muslim lobbying organization that combats what it calls “Islamophobia” in the media"

Let's listen to what Catherine Grandy really said. here's the YouTube broadcast video. Listen to it for yourself .

The Washington Times, in its editorial pages today, posed the question, and it raises interesting issues. The Dems were hot to call Goerge W Bush to account, and a number suggested he might be a war criminal for his actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as his continued detentions at Gitmo. At the time, there were real concerns that he (Bush) might be grabbed in some foreign country, like Spain, that think they can prosecute anyone for anything throughout the world.

Not we have Barack Hussein Obama who has rescinded his previous orders to close Gitmo, decided to return to the flawed commissions, and might even just keep those at the detention facility forever without any formal charges--most of which would be thrown out by the real courts anyway over torture and delays in prosecution. He calls this protecting us from terrorism. Add to this his order that native-bron American citizens can be killed overseas by the CIA because they are 'suspected' of terror activities, and you have a real mess. What comes next?

The politics that pervades America today is slowly dragging us down into the sewers that breed contempt and aversion to law. Obama's Justice Department is, at the least, worse than the Ashcroft regime and can't find good, ethical lawyers to staff its senior positions. Stay tuned--it is bound to get worse at this administration gets closer to the next election.

WMAL Host told to slow down discussions of Terrorism but resigns instead

In what has become a shockwave across the Washington DC area, Fred "Gopher" Grandy, former member of Congress, and host of the Grandy Group on WMAL- Washington, has apparently been forced to resign from his long-time morning talk show.

While Fred himself has said virtually nothing, his wife Catherine Mann-Grandy has been vocal on the subject, speaking with Fox ndews and others about their run-in with the new management at WMAL. The sudden departure immediately triggered rumors that the Council on American Islamic Relations, the country's largest Muslim advocacy group, was somehow involved -- a charge CAIR denied. Mann-Grandy said she thinks that's what happened, though she doesn't have evidence. "You're not allowed to talk about what's happening in your country," she said on FOX News.

According to the FOX News website, " Mann-Grandy, who did a regular segment called "domestic terrorism 101," hit a string of topics on their show last Friday. Though the segment was taken off the radio's site, she described it. She said that, on air, she quoted a rabbi who compared radical Muslims to Nazis, complained that President Obama was not doing enough to help Israel, warned that "Shariah-compliant" individuals work in the government and discussed several other Islam-related topics. "

"Perhaps sensing she might have stepped over a line, she warned on air about the possibility that she might not return the following week. Sure enough, she didn't. Mann-Grandy said her husband told her Tuesday that management told him she could no longer be on the show. Further, she said her husband was told to "really tone it down on the Islam stuff."

Meanwhile, Right Side News suggested a more sinister reason for his departure than a simple tiff with management. In their piece, they quote Grandy and say, " The station (WMAL), a major source of news and information for the nation’s capital, claims that popular morning host Fred Grandy resigned on his own, but Grandy (says) that he was essentially forced to leave after his wife, who is also outspoken about radical Islam, was cut from the program. "

"The growing controversy over Grandy’s departure has resulted in some Grandy supporters charging the station with being “Sharia-compliant,” a reference to Islamic law, and with bending under pressure from the Council on American Islamic-Relations (CAIR), a Muslim lobbying organization that combats what it calls “Islamophobia” in the media."

"Grandy, a former actor and Republican member of Congress, told AIM, “My wife and I have used our program over the last several months to warn about the spread of radical Islam at home and abroad. Last week, Catherine (known on the show as Mrs. Fred) delivered a very tough indictment against stealth jihad, and for her efforts she was told she was off the show. I then told management without Mrs. Fred at the microphone, I could not remain either and have resigned effective this morning.”

The station General manager also released a statement, which said, " "To be clear, at no time has WMAL told Fred that he was not allowed to discuss his views on Islam over the air," he said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "In fact, he has done so on numerous occasions. Further, WMAL has not been contacted by any organization seeking to restrict his broadcasts."

"WMAL remains committed to its goal of providing a forum for discussing a broad spectrum of issues while delivering compelling programming including Chris Plante, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin," he added. Grandy does admit that the decision to resign was his, although it appears the principal reason is the insult to his wife, who was known on the show as "Mrs. Frede", and appeared at least twice each week.

Not the first time WMAL has buckled to criticism

Grandy told Accuracy in Media (AIM), : “We cannot affirmatively conclude CAIR or any of the prominent Islamic organizations had anything to do with this. We do know, however, in 2005 representatives of CAIR in D.C. were successful in getting midmorning host Michael Graham fired for anti-Islamic statements he had made on the radio and TV.” Graham was fired from WMAL after describing Islam as a “terrorist organization” on his program and refusing to apologize or modify the description.

James Lafferty of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force blames the controversy on the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). “CAIR frequently criticized Grandy for reading FBI reports and court documents on his radio show which labeled CAIR as ‘an unindicted co-conspirator’ in the federal Holy Land Foundation terror finance trial,” Lafferty said.

CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper acted surprised by the news of Grandy’s resignation and responded: “What is their evidence for that claim?,” when informed that his group was being blamed for his departure.

Lafferty told AIM: “I heard from two very good sources that CAIR was involved in this and not only targeting Grandy but Sean Hannity.” He said CAIR’s strategy was to knock Grandy off the air and then go after Hannity, a nationally syndicated radio host carried by WMAL in the afternoon. Hannity also hosts a Fox News Channel TV show.

Lafferty has urged supporters of the Grandys to protest on Monday, March 7, and Tuesday, March 8, during “Call Out WMAL Days.” That seems like a great idea. A call to the Station General Manager, Jeff Boden -- in fact, many calls to the GM -- might make a defference.

We need to stop with this artificial political correctness and this is as good a place to start as any.

Journalists release file footage at significant odds with official Israeli Version

This morning at the UN, filmmaker Iara Lee will show footage taken on the Marvi Marmara, a ship of the Freedom Flotilla, as it was attacked by the Israeli commando operation that left 10 dead and numerous wounded last week. This film, one of the few not confiscated by the Israeli IDF, was sent out before the Israelis could confiscate it along with much other footage and tapes as they attacked the flotilla.

These tapes are raw footage, not the doctored and enhanced video the IDF has been slowly releasing as they finish doctoring to support their version of events. It is graphic and worth seeing as another version of the events.

We show it courtest of WPFW in Washington DC where it was shown on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman.

The MV Rachel Corrie is yet the latest ship forcibly taken in International Waters by the masked goons of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). This masked group tries to play at being commandos--they shot ten people--mostly from behind, in the Freedom flotiilla taking, and have now swept down on the Rachek Corrie to do the same thing--still masked of course. Some many remember that Rachel Corrie was the woman crushed to death by an IDF bulldozer as she protesting Israeli construction on arab land several years ago.

The moves have incensed much of the Middle Eastern landscape, extending into Europe and Asia as more countries are demandi ng that the UN take action. of course, Israel, protected by its mentor, the US, will veto any real effort to condemn Israel. For now, they get to continue to act as lawlessly as they choose.

Egypt will keep the Rafah Gate Open.

Egypt, which had been supporting israel on the blockage has now decided that the blockage is useless and serving no good purpose--rapidly becoming unenforcible. So, it has decided to keep open idefinately the Rafah Gate through which Palestinians from Gaza can travel to and from Egypt. It is still unclear how much in the way of humanitarian supplies will move through the gate as well, although for now Egypt says it will not allow bulk supplies to enter. Another of israel's 'friends' join Turkey in moving a distance away from Israel.

Egypt better be careful here--the same Israeli goons that descended on the ships can easily descend on the gate area and try to close it. Wonder if they will be masked as well. more important, will the Egyptians fire back?

Israel has been falsifying footage and press information from the Freedom Flotilla. News reports from Israel indicate that the IDF doctored footage taken from the Freedom Flotilla to show that the civilians on the Mara were actually preparing for the arrival of the Israeli goons. They also issued press releases indicating they had information that many of the 'civilians' were actually al Quaeda operatives. After Max Blumenthal, a noted reporter and commentator called the IDFs hand, the videos were withdrawn and the press releases changed to eliminate the al Queda references. That, of course, now leads to the inevitable question of what to believe when it comes from the IDF or the ISraeli Government.

Israel names Reserve general to probe the actions of the Freedom Flotilla Massacre.

Israel still conti nues to refuse to allow a complete international investigation of the massacre of the Freedom Flotilla passengers, but it has announced that a reserve general wiull lead a probe--limited in nature--to see what lessons can be learned from the action. So much for Israel's boast that it would conduct a credible probe and did not need international supervision or direction.

Still more Israeli goons attack Helen Thomas

For those of you who don't know Ms. Thomas, she is, at 89 years old, the dean of the Washington DC Press Corps, and has been a WHite House Press Correspondent for over 60 years. Yet, because someone put a microphone before her and she made offhand comments on Israel, the goons, in the form of Ari Fleischer and Lanni Davis, both directors of AIPAC (Israel-America Public Affairs Committee) and forced her retirement.

Ms. Thomas's sentiments, that many of those who called themselves Israeli, but were actually from Europe until WWII, should stop occuping arab land and move back where they came from to let the Palestinians live in peace. If this were a comment about almost any other country, it would be laughed off. No so among the Israeli-loving communities. Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W Bush was the first, demanding that Hearst Newspapers fire her immediately. Then came Lanni Davis, who worked for Bill Clinton, demanded that the White House remove her credentials. Both were ready to respond before she announced her retirement.

At least this incident is different --these goons had the guts to not wear masks.

The news is not dying down as Benjamin Netanyahu expected and hoped. Instead, the drumbeat continues, and probably will, as he makes his frequently absurd statements of twisted fact. The latest, reported in the Washington Times today, is that "The flotilla was seeking to challenge the blockade, not to bring aid to Gaza. if the blockade had been broken, it would have been followed by dozens, hundreds of boats. Each boat could carry dozens of missiles." So, at netanyahu's direction, the flotilla was forcibly stopped in international waters and seized with considerable loss of life by a group of inept commandos who were nearly scared off by firehoses and broomsticks--before simply starti ng to shoot unarmed civilians.

Other sources are reporting....

(Washington Post) U.S. citizen among those killed in Israeli flotilla raid

JERUSALEM -- A U.S. citizen of Turkish origin was among the nine people killed in a botched Israeli effort to stop a Turkish aid ship from reaching the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, a Turkish official said Thursday. The American citizen was identified by the Anatolia news agency as Furkan Dogan, a 19-year-old student. His body had four bullet wounds to the head and one to the chest, the news agency reported. The killing of nine Turks has created enormous tensions in the relationship between Israel and Turkey. (Read the Rest of the story here)

(Jerusalem Post) ERGODAN: Israel to lose closest ally.

Turkey is incensed over the deaths inflicted on its citizens last weekend and has made it clear by removing its ambassador that relations are going south for a long time. Even a call from President Obama did not apparently reduce the anger being felt in Ankara by both the Government and its parliament. (Read the story here)

MEANWHILE, the international community had demanded an investigation of the circumstances, which Israel has rejected out of hand, and has said that any investigation will be condicted impartially by Israel, probably with the help of its US ally.

As the Mo nitor reports, "Israeli leaders on Thursday rejected growing calls for an international investigation of its fatal intercept of the Gaza-bound "Freedom Flotilla." But they are weighing whether to include foreign observers in a domestic probe, a move that would help deflect international criticism after Israeli commandos killed nine pro-Palestinian activists. "

The article continued, "A decision to include international involvement would mark an evolution from last year, when, in the wake of the three-week offensive in Gaza, Israel resisted calls to set up its own independent investigation committee and refused to cooperate with the United Nations inquiry headed by Richard Goldstone

But part of the shift may be an Israeli perception that its prospects for vindication are greater this time around. An investigation of the isolated flotilla operation is seen as likely to be more straightforward than those that looked into the 2008-2009 Gaza war or Israel's 2002 invasion of a Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin that killed dozens.

(al-Jazeera) The Day the World became Gaza

"Since Israel's invasion and massacre of over 1,400 people in Gaza 18 months ago, dubbed Operation Cast Lead, global civil society movements have stepped up their campaigns for justice and solidarity with Palestinians."

"Governments, by contrast, carried on with business as usual, maintaining a complicit silence. Israel's lethal attack on the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza may change that, spurring governments to follow the lead of their people and take unprecedented action to check Israel's growing lawlessness."

"One of the bitterest images from Operation Cast Lead was that of smiling European Union heads of government visiting Jerusalem and patting Ehud Olmert, the then Israeli prime minister, on the back as white phosphorus still seared the flesh of Palestinian children a few miles away.Western countries sometimes expressed mild dismay at Israel's "excessive" use of force, but still justified the Gaza massacre as "self-defence" - even though Israel could easily have stopped rocket fire from Gaza, if that was its goal, by returning to the negotiated June 2008 ceasefire it egregiously violated the following November."

AT THE END.......Both sides of the ocean (except, of course, that part that includes the Washington DC area) have spoken out loudly that this foolishness and lawlessness of the Israeli's must stop if there is to be real peace. Both sides have much to atone for, but the people of Gaza are the mostly innocent pawns that feel the pain.

Israelis assault a ship in International waters and call it self-defense. US agrees while the rest of the world condemns Israel

The confrontation between Israeli commandos and activists on ships bound for Gaza has led to yet another international cry for condemnation of Israel and ending the Gaza blockade. Commandos dropped from helicopters to the ships and were met by activists who decided to protect themselves from the invasion. Scullfles ensued, and 10 activists were killed by Israeli small arms fire. Several members of the IDF storm troopers were also injured. Israel, of course claims it was only protecting itself, but who gave them the right to stop the ships in international waters? That was a criminal act, and any defense against the criminal act cannot itself be criminal. This foolishness has to stop.

Israel has an attitude that anything it does is legal, and everything it does is in self-defense. Apparently humanitarian supplies are offensive weapons--instead let the Gazans life in filth and poverty and may be they will eventually go away. Not likely to happen now or in the future.

The US, the small puppy for Israel, particularly now under Czarina Clinton at State, will let them do anything they choose. The US, in the face of the rest of the UN Security Council got a resolution watered down sufficiently that Israel was not condemned--only the event was condemned. Yet, the US claims it has standing to be peace-maker in the region. RUBBISH.

Major nations ought to remove their ambassadors, as Turkey has done, and isolate Israel further until that Israeli Government stops its genocial actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and starts real actions toward peace in the region. The festering sore in the Mideast is not Iran, or Syria, or the Hamas, it is the attitude of the successive Israeli Governments, supported by the US, that allows them to be international murders and killers, and get away with it under the protection of Uncle Sam.

China, aiming to get the most mileage it can from continuing discussions with Iran rather than sanctions-- which also means that China gets to continue to receive oil and gas from that country as well--seems to be creating problems for the Obama Administration in its attempts to impose significant sanctions on that country.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu has reiterated that there is still room for discussions to overcome issues around Iran's nuclear energy program, reports PressTV. Russia has been joining China in that quest.

"We have always believed that dialogue and negotiations are the best channels for resolving the Iran nuclear issue," Jiang said." Referring to the regular meetings of the five permanent members of the Security Council — Russia, China, France, the US and UK — plus Germany (P5+1), she added, "We have stated many times that the six countries launching the talks in New York does not mean that the door is shut to dialogue and negotiations."

Iran claims their nuclear conference a great success

Iran conducted its own nuclear disarmament conference, as it claimed it would, following the recent Washington Conference to which it, Syria, and North Korea were not invited. Iran continues to indicate that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes and not for developing weapons. Few countries in the West believe that position--something only time will tell. Most recently Iran announced it would increase and extend its nuclear development program regarless of what the US wanted, and dared them, or others, such as Israel, to step in.

Al Qaeda leader in Iraq Killed in raid

Iraqi and U.S. troops, building on information provided by a captured al-Qaeda agent, killed a regional leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq in an early morning raid Tuesday. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri were killed in a joint operation Sunday in what has been described as a "potentially devastating blow" to al-Qaeda in Iraq. The intelligence that led to the elusive leaders' desert safehouse about six miles (10 kilometers) southwest of Tikrit came from the same source — a senior al-Qaeda operative captured last month — that produced the information leading to Tuesday's raid, according to a senior Iraqi military intelligence officer who supervised both operations. Security forces continue to put pressure on the terrorist organization following the reported deaths of these two top-ranking figures over the weekend, officials said.

The Palestinian leadership is exerting efforts to force Israel into cancelling the military decision on the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians out of the West Bank, Dr.Saeb Oraiqat, the head of negotiations in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) said. The Palestinian authority would head to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to demand the issuance of a resolution to black out the Israeli military decision. Israel has reportedly started implementation of the resolution (1650) issued by the commander of the Israeli forces operating the West Bank to expel Palestinians residing in the city, claiming that they are classified as ‘infiltrators’.